Oral
Answers to
Questions

Business and Trade

The Secretary of State was asked—

Forced Labour: Product Ban

Alicia Kearns: If she will introduce legislative proposals to ban products from UK markets that are made with or transported using forced labour.

Alan Mak: The Government recognise the importance of ensuring that UK businesses respect human rights throughout their operations. We continue to keep this area under review and will work with our international partners to understand the most effective ways of tackling forced labour in supply chains.

Alicia Kearns: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. However, companies with well-documented links to Uyghur slave labour are dumping their goods here in the UK. That is because the United States has introduced the Uyghur Forced Labour Prevention Act and the EU has acted similarly. Last month, I, along with 43 Members of this House and 32 human rights organisations, wrote a joint statement calling for import controls on solar panels. Will the Minister agree to meet me to discuss that and to finally bring forward measures to clean up our supply chains?

Alan Mak: The Government are clear that British businesses and solar developers should not stand for receiving solar panels from companies linked to forced labour. We have already taken steps to address the issue through the Procurement Act 2023 and the Modern Slavery Act 2015. In addition, the forthcoming UK solar road map will outline a clear path to reaching our solar deployment ambitions, including on energy security. I reassure my hon. Friend that sustainable solar supply chains will form a central chapter of that road map, and I would be happy to either arrange or have a meeting with her.

Horizon: Northern Ireland Postmasters

Jim Shannon: What steps her Department is taking to support postmasters affected by errors in the Horizon IT system in Northern Ireland.

Kevin Hollinrake: On Monday, the House agreed a Government amendment to the Horizon exoneration Bill—the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill—to include convictions in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Executive faced unique challenges in delivering their own legislation in a timely manner. Including Northern Ireland in the Bill ensures that postmasters there are not left behind, and receive exoneration and access to compensation on a UK-wide basis.

Jim Shannon: First, let me put on record my thanks to the Minister, who has been an industrious, assiduous and great champion for the postmasters and postmistresses across this United Kingdom. There is not a person in the House who does not have great respect for him.
Further to Monday’s business in the House regarding that Northern Ireland provision in the Horizon Bill, which was brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), will the Minister outline a timeline so that postmasters and postmistresses across all of Northern Ireland can see an end to the reputational and financial damage, and the heartache caused by the disgraceful operation of the Horizon scheme?

Kevin Hollinrake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kinds words. It is always a pleasure to work with him and his colleagues. It is our intention that the legislation will clear both Houses by July, although obviously not all of these things are within our gift. Should that be the case, as we fully expect it to be, the convictions will be quashed in July and compensation redress will be paid from August.

Export Target

Desmond Swayne: What progress she has made on helping businesses to reach her target level of exports.

Andrew Jones: What progress she has made on supporting businesses to reach £1 trillion in annual exports.

Kemi Badenoch: UK exports were £862 billion in the 12 months to February. UK services exports reached a record £472 billion in the same period, which is an increase of 10%—they went up by £42 billion. Businesses, including small and medium-sized enterprises, can access my Department’s wealth of export support at great.gov.uk. That support includes the UK Export Academy, which has had more than 18,000 registrations; our 160 international trade advisers, who help about 6,000 SMEs each year; and 388 export champions, across every part of the UK.

Desmond Swayne: Are we really the fourth largest exporter in the world?

Kemi Badenoch: I am pleased to tell my right hon. Friend that we are. There are many, many more good statistics, which he will find in the publication my Department produced at the end of January; it contains further good news stories on UK exports. The UK is a global exporting superpower and the world’s second  biggest services exporter. Services exports to the European Union are at a record high and have increased by 36% since 2018.

Andrew Jones: My right hon. Friend has just detailed very encouraging data, much of which results from the hard work of SMEs. Will she give a bit more information about what support is available specifically to SMEs to help them grow and export more of their products and services?

Kemi Badenoch: The Department has declared this year the year of the SME. People often hear news that sounds as though it is just about big business, but SMEs employ most of the people in the UK. We have a network of 160 international trade advisers and our export support services. We have also put in place schemes such as a Help to Grow management course, which 5,290 participants had completed by November. We also have a business support service, which provides support to about 30,000 people in England every year.

Gerald Jones: Further to those comments about SMEs, in the light of the termination of the trade show access programme, which supported SMEs in gaining international market exposure, what is the Government’s strategy to provide equivalent or enhanced support to ensure UK food products remain competitive within EU markets?

Kemi Badenoch: We know that a lot of people are disappointed that we closed the trade show programme, but it was a pilot programme and it did not yield the business successes that we had hoped. We are investing in those things that are providing success and demonstrating real benefits. The UK Export Academy is one of them, along with the export support service, as I mentioned, and the international trade advisers. Many of them will have expertise in food and drink. If the hon. Gentleman writes to us with a specific case, we will be happy to help.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Gareth Thomas: Unfortunately for Government Members, and more importantly for the country, the Office for Budget Responsibility’s recent figures, which I know the Secretary of State struggles with, show that exports have dropped on her watch and are set to have declined again this year. If she has a moment to spare from her leadership campaign, she might read the landmark report published by Aston University last week on the significant boost for British exports that a veterinary agreement could deliver through British farmers and the agrifood industry. Why will she not pursue an agreement that is so obviously in Britain’s national interest?

Kemi Badenoch: The OBR puts out lots of figures and the Opposition cherry-pick the ones they think will be most helpful, thinking that we have not done our homework. I encourage the hon. Member to look at the OBR forecasts for growth for this country, which are very high, and I ask him which specific period he is  referring to. He should look at what has happened to exports overall, not just periods including covid, which explain why we have had some drops in food exports.

Gareth Thomas: I asked the Secretary of State about the veterinary agreement; I suspect no one on the Opposition Benches will be surprised that she has not shown any interest in a trade agreement that would help British farmers. According to the House of Commons Library, under the last Labour Government exports rose by 55%, but since then exports have risen by only 32%. Is the truth not that British exporters always do better under a Labour Government?

Kemi Badenoch: That is absolute rubbish. It is not true. The veterinary agreement that he is talking about would create dynamic alignment with the EU, which is not what this country voted for in 2016. We are delivering what the people voted for. Yes, there will be difficulties—we are sorting them out. It is time that the Opposition moved on and accepted the will of the people.

South Korea: FTA Negotiations

John Whittingdale: What recent progress her Department has made on negotiating a free trade agreement with South Korea.

Greg Hands: I thank my right hon. Friend for the valuable work he is doing as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to the Republic of Korea. I look forward to his upcoming visit there. He is famous for his timely interventions. Detailed round 2 discussions on an upgraded FTA took place in London from 18 to 22 March, which provided an opportunity to conclude the exploratory phase of negotiations. We now look forward to text-based negotiations in round 3, which is due to take place in Seoul from 24 June.

John Whittingdale: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer ahead of my visit to Korea next week. Does he agree that the Indo-Pacific region offers huge opportunities for global growth, particularly as it will be home to something like half the world’s middle-class consumers over the coming decades, and therefore that upgrading this agreement is likely to bring huge benefits to the UK?

Greg Hands: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Indo-Pacific is a vital part of the world for the UK and forms the centrepiece of our strategy going forward diplomatically and on trading ties. He is right that the Republic of Korea will play a vital role in that. The recently signed Downing Street accord with Korea outlines the breadth and depth of the ongoing relationship. We look forward to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership coming into effect later this year, and we look forward to seeing if the Republic of Korea will apply.

Kevin Brennan: I am sure the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) does a very effective job in South Korea. I visited myself with the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee a couple of years ago and saw those opportunities. However, there is some concern about transparency around the use of trade envoys. Will the Minister confirm  to the House that under this Government no trade envoy has ever demanded and been given the use of a house for their exclusive use?

Greg Hands: The hon. Gentleman has slightly jumped the gun, as the next question on the Order Paper relates to trade envoys. May I say how proud we are of the cross-party trade envoy programme, which I think he will hear about in a moment? We think they do an excellent, good value-for-money job for the United Kingdom in promoting trade in a number of key markets.

Parliamentary Trade Envoys

Chris Bryant: What the travel costs of parliamentary trade envoys were in each of the last three years.

Greg Hands: The Prime Minister’s trade envoys provide invaluable support in progressing the UK’s trade and investment agenda in 61 markets across the world. The travel costs incurred by the Prime Minister’s trade envoys were: £63,566 for the financial year 2021-22; £226,014 for 2022-23; and £232,325 for 2023-24. These costs were for flights, for accommodation when the official British residence was unavailable and for other sundry expenses.

Chris Bryant: There is a great deal of murkiness about the trade envoys. I note that, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), the Minister point blank refused to deny that at least one trade envoy has explicitly asked for the exclusive use of a house while acting as a trade envoy. The Minister has point blank refused to publish the breakdown of all the trade envoys and their costs for absolutely spurious reasons. If a Select Committee visits South Korea, for instance, all the details of the costs are published, but not if a trade envoy goes. How can we possibly judge whether the £750,000 that has been spent so far in the past three years has been well spent? Is there any accountability whatsoever, or is this really just a means of providing sinecures for people who are liked in Government?

Greg Hands: Well, there is a lot of bluster there and not a few accusations. The hon. Gentleman may wish to try to stack these things up a bit. It is a cross-party programme, not a Government-only programme. Many Labour MPs, Labour peers and others are members of the programme. Gifts and hospitality are already published in departmental registers. If I may say so, Mr Speaker, two qualifications for this cross-party role are diplomacy and discretion, which might explain why not everybody has been asked to do it.

Scottish Products: Overseas Promotion

Neale Hanvey: What recent discussions she has had with the Scottish Government on the promotion of Scottish products in overseas markets.

Kemi Badenoch: My Department works closely with the Scottish Government and their agencies to promote Scottish products in overseas markets. We have recently delivered  our Made in Scotland, Sold to the World exporter roadshow in Glasgow. On top of that, I am pleased to say that the PG Paper Company, a brilliant Scottish business, has just received an award in this year’s Made in the UK, Sold to the World awards.

Neale Hanvey: The value of Scotland’s oil exports to the EU reached £9.4 billion in 2023, with total oil exports up 14.7%, so the value of oil as an export commodity cannot be overstated. Those billions of pounds in exports can be balanced against the modest £80 million investment that would increase Grangemouth’s profitability threefold, secure its long-term future and save Grangemouth from closure. Does the Secretary of State accept that it would be absurd for Scotland to be the only major oil-producing nation without a refinery capacity, and will she agree to meet me to discuss this matter further, given that the Scottish Government are otherwise occupied?

Kemi Badenoch: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this issue. It is something that we are concerned about and the UK and Scottish Governments are working together to understand all the options for the future of the refinery, and working closely on the issue through forums such as the Grangemouth Future Industry Board. I am very happy to meet him—as are other Ministers—to discuss this matter further.

David Mundell: Does the Secretary of State agree that, while there has been great progress in promoting and increasing the export of traditional Scottish products, such as whisky, we also need to support new businesses, such as one in South Lanarkshire that is keen to expand electronic vehicle infrastructure into the United States?

Kemi Badenoch: Yes, my right hon. Friend is quite right: our exports need to be about the future, not just about the traditional industries, such as Scottish whisky, which are the pride of Scotland and of the UK. Electric vehicles are one way that we will hit our net zero target, and this is an area that the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is focused on and that I support in Business and Trade. If there is anything specific that we can look into for his constituency, we would be very happy to help.

Steel Supply Chain Jobs

Stephen Kinnock: What steps she is taking to support jobs in steel supply chains.

Alan Mak: The UK Government’s £500 million grant will safeguard steelmaking in Port Talbot, 5,000 jobs in the company and thousands more in supply chains across the UK that would otherwise have been under serious threat. The transition board, with a further £100 million of funding—£80 million from the UK Government and £20 million from Tata—will also support those affected. That funding will help supply chain businesses to strengthen and diversify their customer base, creating sustainable jobs and business opportunities in Port Talbot and the wider region.

Stephen Kinnock: When it is finally introduced, the carbon border adjustment mechanism will provide a vital tool to ensure that British steelworkers have a level playing field so that they can compete against heavily polluting steel industries in other parts of the world, but recent media reports have indicated that India is lobbying No. 10 for an exemption from the UK CBAM. Does the Minister recognise that CBAMs work only if they are comprehensive across all countries and sectors, and if we start giving exemptions here or there the entire policy will unravel? That is particularly important given that Tata’s plan for Port Talbot is based on importing millions of tonnes of semi-finished product steel from India, a country that produces its steel with significantly higher carbon intensity. Will the Minister confirm that under no circumstances will India be given an exemption from the UK carbon border adjustment mechanism? A yes or no answer will suffice.

Alan Mak: I was pleased to visit the hon. Gentleman’s constituency as part of my first round of visits in this new role. I look forward to meeting him again later this month. He is right that the Government are committed to ensuring that UK decarbonisation efforts lead to a true reduction in global emissions. The CBAM policy is still being designed. The consultation is ongoing, and I recommend that he contributes to it.

Holly Mumby-Croft: Residents in Scunthorpe are particularly concerned about steel supply chain jobs related to virgin steelmaking. My hon. Friend’s predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani), was very clear from the Dispatch Box that we obviously need a place for virgin steelmaking in the UK, and that that place is Scunthorpe. Will he confirm that he agrees with her, and that nothing is off the table in his negotiations with British Steel?

Alan Mak: I was pleased to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency to meet steelworkers and British Steel management during my visits last month. I know that she is a passionate and dedicated champion for her community and for steelworkers there. I look forward to meeting her again next week ahead of the visit of the Secretary of State to her constituency, and to discussing these matters and others.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Sarah Jones: No commitment to virgin steel from the Minister, then—what a shame. I welcome him to his place, and note that he visited Port Talbot steelworks last week, but he failed to meet any actual steelworkers of course. Instead of avoiding discussing the Government’s plans for £500 million of taxpayers’ money for the loss of nearly 3,000 jobs, will he please commit to meeting some Port Talbot steelworkers, and will he publish his economic assessment of the impact of the UK losing its capacity to make virgin steel—or is his actual plan to just keep his head down until the Prime Minister finally has the guts to call a general election and leave all these problems piling up for somebody else?

Alan Mak: This Conservative Government have given more support to the steel sector than any Government before us. When I went to Port Talbot, I was pleased to  meet steelworkers, and I will continue to do so. I also sit on the transition board. I will continue to support steel in south Wales and all the opportunities that the sector will bring.

Caribbean Community: Trade

Daniel Kawczynski: What recent progress she has made on increasing levels of trade with Caribbean Community member states.

Greg Hands: My hon. Friend is a great champion of international trade, as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy for Mongolia. He will be pleased to know that annual trade between the UK and the Caribbean economic community, CARICOM, in 2023 was £5.1 billion—up 11% in current prices on the previous year. In December 2023, I represented the UK at the inaugural joint council of our economic partnership agreement, where I met representatives of CARICOM and the Dominican Republic, collectively known as CARIFORUM, underlining the importance of our trading relationship and exploring opportunities to further boost trade.

Daniel Kawczynski: I speak as the chairman of the all-party parliamentary groups on St Kitts and Nevis, Guyana and the Caribbean. It is an extremely important region for the United Kingdom, one of the largest concentrations of British overseas territories and Commonwealth nations in the world, with historic links with the United Kingdom, but the copy-and-paste trade deals that we have with them, carried over from the European Union, are not sufficient. We need a more tailor-made, specific trade agreement between the United Kingdom and the Caribbean Community to ensure that some of those protectionist measures that the European Union imposed on our CARICOM friends can be rescinded. When will that happen?

Greg Hands: I thank my hon. Friend for his engagement in the region, in St Kitts, the Caribbean as a whole and Guyana, which remains in all our minds at the moment given the situation on its borders. He is right to highlight the CARIFORUM trade deal; it is a deal that the UK values, and I mentioned that we have had the inaugural meeting of the body designed to ensure that the deal has good effects on our trade with the Caribbean. I might suggest arranging a meeting between my hon. Friend and the trade commissioner Jonathan Knott, who I am sure would be delighted to meet him to discuss Caribbean trade possibilities still further.

Small Businesses: Non-financial Reporting Requirements

Rob Butler: What steps her Department is taking to reduce non-financial reporting requirements for small businesses.

Kevin Hollinrake: I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for his work as one of our trade envoys to the Kingdom of Morocco—I know he is a true diplomat and the soul of discretion. We recently announced that we were raising the monetary thresholds that determine  company size, reducing burdens on smaller businesses and removing low-value and overlapping reporting requirements. Around 13,000 medium-sized companies will be reclassified as small companies, and 100,000 small companies will be reclassified as micro-companies. This will save small and medium-sized companies around £145 million a year.

Rob Butler: I visit many small businesses in my Aylesbury constituency, and I am always incredibly impressed by their spirit of entrepreneurship and the huge effort and hard work that they put in to succeed. They want to be able to devote as much of their skill and time as possible to finding new customers, selling more of their products and creating jobs, not to bureaucracy, admin and onerous regulation. As the true party of business, our Government have already made great progress supporting business, as the Minister has just outlined, but what more can his Department do to help the small and micro-firms that are the engine of our economy?

Kevin Hollinrake: My hon. Friend is a real champion of small business, and we meet often talk about these matters. This Government’s policies have pushed the UK to third place in the OECD rankings for start-ups—third out of 39 countries—and we have a suite of programmes to help small businesses. Most importantly, we offer access to finance, with our Start-Up Loans Company, growth guarantee scheme and equity investment schemes, the seed enterprise investment scheme and the enterprise investment scheme. We offer supportive advice through our Help to Grow management suite, including our newly launched “Help to Grow: Management Essentials” course, which is two hours’ free online training for small businesses. We are also removing barriers through non-financial reporting. As well as the monetary size thresholds, we are consulting on increasing the employee size thresholds from 250 employees for a medium-sized company to 500, which will save medium-sized companies a further £150 million a year.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Tan Dhesi: Alongside the despair and financial pressures faced by small businesses, the British Poultry Council recently reported that unreciprocated EU border checks have unfairly saddled UK exporters with £55 million a year in extra costs, while their EU counterparts pay absolutely nothing. Does the Minister agree that this Government’s failure to negotiate a fair sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the EU has directly undermined British businesses and exposed our exporters to severe competitive disadvantages?

Kevin Hollinrake: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman’s question is put that way. We are trying to make sure that we have a fair and level playing field for UK exporters and EU exporters. Of course we need checks on the borders on that basis—it would not be fair to UK producers if that was not the case—but what he is pushing for in a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement is what his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) was pushing for: dynamic alignment with the EU, which would lock us into EU rules permanently. We do not believe in that. We believe we have a bright future outside the European Union. He would lock us back into the customs union and the single market.

Manufacturing Sector

Jamie Wallis: What recent assessment she has made of the contribution of the manufacturing sector to the economy.

Alan Mak: The UK is a global hub for advanced manufacturing, and according to the OECD, the UK’s manufacturing sector has had the fastest growth in the G7 since 2010. The importance of the sector was highlighted in the Manufacturing Technologies Association’s recent “The true impact of UK manufacturing” report. Manufacturing contributed £217 billion gross value added to the UK economy in 2023, and plays an outsized role in the key drivers of growth, including by accounting for over 40% of UK exports.

Jamie Wallis: The UK leads the way in areas such as artificial intelligence, robotics and the internet of things, which are important for our future, especially in manufacturing. How is that strengthening British businesses and the British economy?

Alan Mak: It is well known across the House that my hon. Friend is a strong champion for manufacturing and advanced technologies. The Government are also strongly committed to supporting research and development and innovation, because they contribute significantly to our economic growth. In particular, industrial technologies such as robotics and AI are supporting manufacturing businesses to be more productive and sustainable. That is why the Government have increased R&D investment to £20 billion a year, and are expanding Made Smarter, our highly successful industrial digitisation programme for small and medium-sized enterprises.

Andrew Bridgen: Mainly because of this House’s worship of the false idol of net zero, electricity costs to businesses in the UK are four and a half times higher than those in China and three times higher than those in India. Can the Minister explain how manufacturing businesses in the UK can compete with that on world markets?

Alan Mak: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in welcoming the introduction of the British industry supercharger, which reduces electricity costs for major energy-intensive industries. I hope that it will benefit businesses in his constituency and across the country.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Richard Thomson: A key sector of the manufacturing economy is the plastics industry, which employs 155,000 people and has an annual turnover of £28.7 billion. In July 2023, the UK Government began a consultation on the plastic packaging tax and the methodology behind it. In February, some 14 organisations signed a joint letter to the Government urging the swift publication of that consultation. When exactly do the Government expect to be able to respond to that long-overdue consultation?

Alan Mak: The hon. Gentleman is right: the UK plastics industry is highly important and contributed £8.2 billion to the economy last year. I am aware of the consultation, which is led by the Treasury, and I will ensure that he gets a reply.

United States: Trade

Greg Smith: What recent progress she has made on increasing levels of trade with the United States.

Kemi Badenoch: Over the past two years, UK-US trade has grown 35% from £230 billion to £311 billion, while shared investment between our two nations now totals over £1.1 trillion. In March, following the excellent work of our trade envoy, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Sir Conor Burns), I signed a state-level arrangement with Texas. That means that UK businesses now have memorandums of understanding with eight US states with a combined GDP equivalent to a quarter of the whole US economy.

Greg Smith: I am delighted to report that US motorsport giant Andretti has shown a massive vote of confidence in the UK by taking 40,000 square feet of facilities in Buckinghamshire, with another 70,000 square feet on order, and is already employing over 100 people locally in high-tech jobs. That clearly opens up huge opportunities for automotive and motorsport supply-chain businesses on both sides of the pond, including General Motors. Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming Andretti to the UK in its bid to get on to the Formula 1 grid, and what more can she do to ensure that automotive and motorsport supply chains can operate on both sides of the Atlantic?

Kemi Badenoch: I was delighted to see my hon. Friend visit the opening of Andretti Global’s new facility in Silverstone last month. I wish it luck as it continues its preparations to enter Formula 1. That investment is another vote of confidence in the world-leading innovation that the UK has to offer. Andretti Global will also specifically benefit from the MOU that we have signed with Indiana, which will enhance our trade relationship in key areas, including advanced manufacturing.

Wine: Pint Measures

Patrick Grady: Whether UK wine companies have sought advice from her Department on preparations for producing wine in pint measures under the Weights and Measures (Intoxicating Liquor) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.

Kevin Hollinrake: The 568 ml pint quantity is one of several changes to pre-packed wine sizes that are expected to come into force on 19 September 2024, supporting the thriving UK wine sector by providing opportunities for innovation and greater choice. In light of those changes, Wine GB—which represents producers—said:
“We welcome the chance to be able to harmonise still and sparkling bottle sizes and we are happy to raise a glass to the greater choice that allows UK producers for domestic sales.”

Patrick Grady: That answer is nowhere near as definitive as the press release that the Minister’s Department put out on 27 December last year—which is still on the Government website—with the headline
“‘Pints’ of wine stocked on Britain’s shelves for the first time ever”.
That headline did not say “will be stocked”, “might be stocked” “could be stocked”, or “to be stocked”; it implied that pints of wine were, and are, available to buy right now in shops across the UK. Will the Government admit that the reality is that there has been little to no demand for, or interest in, that supposedly glorious Brexit benefit, and that in fact it is entirely possible that pints of wine will never be stocked on UK shelves?

Kevin Hollinrake: It is never difficult to distinguish the hon. Gentleman from a ray of sunshine, is it? Our wine industry is thriving, with over 900 vineyards across Great Britain. The UK wine industry produced 12.2 million bottles of wine in 2022, and our new post-Brexit powers provide us with new options. Those include new legislation that aligns existing sizes across still and sparking pre-packed wine so that both can be sold in 200 ml and 500 ml quantities, for which we know there is good demand.

New Zealand FTA: Environment

Wera Hobhouse: Whether she has made an assessment of the potential impact of New Zealand’s proposed Fast-track Approvals Bill on its obligations under the UK-New Zealand free trade agreement environment chapter.

Greg Hands: In March, the UK and New Zealand highlighted the importance of our environmental commitments at the first ever environment committee under our new free trade agreement. We continue to engage with New Zealand on implementing the environmental chapter, and will monitor the proposed Bill that the hon. Lady mentioned during its passage through New Zealand’s Parliament.

Wera Hobhouse: The New Zealand FTA entered into force on 31 May 2023. It contains a commitment in article 22 that each party will not
“waive or otherwise derogate from, or offer to waive or otherwise derogate from, its environmental laws in a manner that weakens or reduces the protection afforded in that law”.
Is there not a danger that the fast-track approvals will erode those protections? What steps will the Government take to ensure that New Zealand absolutely upholds its commitments under the FTA?

Greg Hands: As I said, we will continue to monitor the passage of that proposed legislation, but the hon. Lady must recognise that the UK and New Zealand are incredibly like-minded in these areas—on climate, the environment and clean growth. The environment chapter in our free trade agreement is one of the most ambitious in any FTA anywhere in the world. It breaks new ground for both the UK and New Zealand in supporting our shared climate and environmental goals, clean growth, and the transition to a net zero economy.

Topical Questions

Patrick Grady: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Kemi Badenoch: Post Office governance is a priority for the Government, and I have said many times that it is vital  that we have the right people leading that organisation. I am therefore pleased to tell the House that, on Wednesday, I announced the appointment of Nigel Railton as its interim chair. Having previously been chief executive of Camelot, Nigel brings a wealth of experience of transforming organisations, and I am confident that he is the right person to lead the Post Office through this period. Nigel Railton will take up his post as soon as possible, and will be invited to give Ministers his views on the future direction of the Post Office in due course.

Patrick Grady: When will the Government admit that their Brexit dream of people quaffing pints of wine and invoking the spirit of Churchill was always a fantasy, and that the reality is, in fact, a Brexit nightmare of border checks, reduced consumer choice and business closures?

Kemi Badenoch: It is nonsense to say that this reduces consumer choice; it actually increases consumer choice. I cannot imagine why anyone would be complaining about the sale of pints of wine. If the hon. Gentleman does not like them, he does not have to buy them.

Therese Coffey: I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department have been looking into the closure of Kelsale post office, an outreach service in my constituency. Very recently, we voted through more money to subsidise the Post Office, including £50 million for rural branches. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State make sure that that money is allocated? I know that the Post Office is trying to cut costs, but that should not be at the expense of customers in Kelsale.

Kevin Hollinrake: I thank my right hon. Friend for her work on this, and she raised this important matter with me at meetings last month. We allocate £50 million for the uncommercial part of the network, and part of that should help the services in her constituency. I know she is disappointed at the closure of the outreach service in Kelsale, but there is an alternative permanent post office branch in Saxmundham, 1.3 miles away. I am happy to continue the conversation between her and the post office to make sure that she gets the services she needs in her constituency.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Rushanara Ali: Shoplifting cost UK retailers £1.8 billion in 2023, the highest figure on record. The Government’s £200 shoplifting threshold has effectively decriminalised this offence, which is costing businesses dear. What discussions has the Minister had with the Home Secretary about scrapping it, as Labour plans to do, so retailers and customers are protected and high street businesses can thrive?

Kevin Hollinrake: It is not true to say that we have decriminalised thefts under £200. The hon. lady needs to speak to police officers and her local chief constable to make sure she understands how this works. I have worked very closely with the Home Office and the Policing Minister to make sure we have a retail crime action plan, which includes a vexatious offence with more severe sentences for people who assault shop  workers. We have got an action plan together and it is working well with retailers, and I am very keen to see her support that plan.

Rushanara Ali: Well, it is not working, and the Minister and the Secretary of State should take this seriously, because it is damaging our high streets and causing huge concern up and down the country. He and the Secretary of State should go and meet those businesses, and hear from them directly.
Turning to another issue, we have seen 14 years of Conservative under-investment in public infrastructure, a failure to provide certainty and a failure to get a grip on the economy. Business investment has also suffered. Had it matched the average investment levels of France, Germany and the US, our GDP would be nearly 4% higher today, and wages would have been boosted by £1,250 a year. Can the Secretary of State outline how she plans to fix this crippling investment gap, and what will she do to make sure businesses get the support they need so that we can get the economic growth this country desperately needs after 14 years of under-investment?

Kemi Badenoch: I remember a time when Labour Members were telling everyone that we should not invest in nuclear, and it is under this Conservative Government that we are investing in nuclear infrastructure. That has only happened under Conservative Governments. The hon. Lady asks about the plan. I would remind her about the global investment summit we had in November, which raised nearly £30 billion in one day. No one is better than our current Prime Minister at delivering inward investment for this country. Business investment is rising, and it is rising because of the policies that he and the Chancellor have put in place, such as capital expensing.

Greg Smith: Yesterday, I was pleased to meet a number of UK aerospace businesses demonstrating and showcasing extraordinary innovation right here in the United Kingdom, including Safran, which has a significant base in Pitstone in my constituency. Can I ask my hon. Friend what the Department has done to ensure that we can increase aerospace exports?

Alan Mak: I thank my hon. Friend, who I know is a strong champion of aerospace exports in this House. Last year’s autumn statement extended the aerospace technology programme budget by a further five years, with an additional £975 million of new R&D funding from 2025 through to 2030. As part of this vote of confidence in the UK civil space sector, our trade missions and trade promotion activities by my Department and our embassies around the world continue to help companies with export contracts worth millions of pounds.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Richard Thomson: In 2017, Boris Johnson claimed the UK was “first in line” for a post-Brexit trade deal with the United States. While negotiations opened in May 2020, no progress has been made since October of that year. When does the Secretary of State expect to be able to deliver this alleged Brexit benefit, and what does she think will arrive first—a trade deal with the US or pints of champagne to toast it with?

Kemi Badenoch: As everyone on the Government Benches knows, even if we had a trade deal with the US, the hon. Member would be standing there telling us how he would be voting against it. The fact of the matter is that the US is not carrying out any free trade agreements with any country. There is nothing we can do about that, so instead we have been negotiating deals with states at an individual level, as I mentioned. For the last one, the governor of Texas came to the UK to sign a trade deal memorandum of understanding between Texas and the United Kingdom. Our relationship with the US is going well. I spoke about exports increasing, and our trade increasing to £311 billion. Trade with the US is going well. We will continue to pursue a free trade agreement, but trade requires two parties in order to deliver.

David Mundell: Are Ministers as concerned as I am about continued reports that Royal Mail is determined to move away from a six-day service? In a large rural constituency such as mine, with an older population, people continue to rely on the Royal Mail for important communications. Can the Minister make clear that that is not the direction of travel the Government want Royal Mail to go in?

Kevin Hollinrake: We absolutely agree with that point, and we have been clear with Royal Mail and the regulator Ofcom that we want a continued six-day service. Royal Mail and hopefully Ofcom will have heard what my right hon. Friend and I are saying today: the six-day service must continue.

Jim Shannon: Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) to the Prime Minister yesterday, with the Republic of Ireland now employing a form of border control, seemingly reinstating a hard border, what discussions have taken place regarding the ability for business vehicles to pass through the border, with delays due to onerous checks by Garda Síochána and Republic of Ireland and EU border staff?

Greg Hands: Of course the Government as a whole are monitoring this situation very closely. We have very good relations with the Government of the Republic of Ireland, and I will pass on the hon. Member’s comments to the Cabinet Office and the Foreign Office.

Holly Mumby-Croft: Would it be acceptable if the UK became the only country in the G7 that could not make its own virgin steel?

Kemi Badenoch: My hon. Friend will know how committed this Government are to the steel industry, but at the moment it is going through a transition. We care about having primary steel-making capacity in this country—that is something we want to do and to keep, but as she knows, even now we still import ore. I know she is concerned about British Steel and its future. I will be visiting her constituency in Scunthorpe and we will be able to discuss those matters further.

Stephen Kinnock: Yesterday, the BBC reported on expert analysis that has been submitted to the transition board, indicating that cutting  2,800 directly employed Tata Steel employees could lead to up to 9,500 additional job losses, due to the huge number of contractors and sub-contractors who are indirectly employed by Tata. When the Government handed £500 million of taxpayers’ money to Tata to do that deal, had they made a full assessment of the job losses: not just those directly employed by Tata who would lose their jobs, but the vast number of jobs that will be lost through the supply chains and contractors?

Alan Mak: The hon. Gentleman and I both sit on the Tata transition board, which has a dedicated group to look at the welfare of contractors and supply chain partners. We will ensure that we support those people as much as the direct employees of Tata.

Rob Butler: One of the many benefits of Brexit has been our ability to take back control of our trade negotiations. The comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership is one of the most exciting, so will the Minister provide an update on the status of our accession to CPTPP?

Greg Hands: I am delighted to be able to do so, and delighted to have such an enthusiastic supporter of CPTPP, which is an enormous benefit to this country. The UK joining will take its share of global GDP from around 11% to just over 15%. The UK will be the first country ever to accede to CPTPP, which includes most of the fastest growing markets in the Asia-Pacific region: the UK joining shows that it goes beyond the region. On accession, we are delighted that Royal Assent has been given to our Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Act 2024, and we are looking forward to UK ratification in the coming weeks. Three of the 11 parties have ratified so far—Japan, Chile and Singapore—and we look forward to further parties ratifying it in the coming weeks, to make progress on this extraordinary opportunity for this country.

Wera Hobhouse: Last year, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee heard that the lack of a coherent agritrade policy, together with a complex set of import and export certification rules, is preventing rural businesses, particularly food producers, from trading outside the UK. How will the Department support UK producers to deal with complex trade red tape?

Greg Hands: I gave evidence in front of the EFRA Committee just last week on this very issue with our Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Sir Mark Spencer). We put in a huge amount of resources. We have a number of commissioners and trade support people around European Union countries and around the world promoting agrifood exports. I add that we also have a record level of services and exports to the EU, some of which will be in the agriculture sector. We have, contrary to the constant doom and gloom that the hon. Lady brings to this question time every five weeks, a very good story to tell about the successes of the United Kingdom when it comes to trade.

Dave Doogan: Scottish salmon is just one of the Scottish businesses that serve to prop up the failing UK economy, yet trade organisation Salmon Scotland revealed recently that the salmon industry in  Scotland is losing £100 million a year in trade with the EU. Since 2019, that has amounted to a 17% drop in trade. What message does the Secretary of State have for this business in Scotland, where all businesses and two thirds of the electorate rejected this hard Tory Brexit?

Greg Hands: We hear this from the Scottish National party all the time, opposing everything in terms of UK trade agreements. It is actually Scottish goods that benefit from so many of these trade agreements that we have negotiated, such as whisky when it comes to the Australian and New Zealand deals and the coming deal we hope to do with India. All these deals benefit Scottish goods in particular, yet the SNP has opposed or abstained on every single trade deal that has ever been done by either this country or by the European Union. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman knows it is true. The SNP has abstained on Japan and on Singapore; it is against Canada, against South Africa, against Korea, against Australia and against New Zealand; and its Members even failed to show up on the Ukraine agreement. It is a woeful record when it comes to supporting Scotland from the SNP.

Andrew Jones: What action are the Government taking to strengthen critical supply chains?

Alan Mak: The Government launched our critical imports and supply chain strategy earlier this year, and I chaired the Critical Imports Council last month. We are bringing together 23 organisations to make sure that our supply chains are robust, and I look forward to my hon. Friend’s input into that.

Christine Jardine: The village of Kirkliston in my community recently became the latest to lose its post office—there have been a whole series of closures. That community is not isolated, but it is not in the centre of Edinburgh, and there is no alternative. As I say, it is one of a series, so can the Minister tell us what the Government are going to try to do to halt this decline in post offices?

Kevin Hollinrake: As I said in response to an earlier question, we put in £50 million to support the uncommercial parts of the network. I am sorry that the post office that the hon. Lady mentions has closed. I am happy to meet her to see what we can do to ensure that there is a local post office. There are network access requirements on the Post Office, and 99% of the population must be within 3 miles of a post office. If that is not the case in her area, I am happy to do what I can to ensure that that is rectified.

Kevin Brennan: When the Minister for Trade Policy, the right hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), bragged to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) earlier that his trade envoys had to have a qualification of “diplomacy and discretion”, did he have in mind the former trade envoy to Colombia, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies)?

Kemi Badenoch: If the Opposition want to make an accusation, they should go ahead and do so, rather than this playground game that they are playing, which is insulting to every trade envoy, on both sides of the House, who is delivering for this country.

Richard Foord: Green Resource Engineering Ltd, a highly successful company in Willand, already exports £1 million of engineering business to South Korea every year and has done so for the last six years. The managing director, Richard Booth, let me know that exporting to Korea is already straightforward; by contrast, getting parts in from Europe has become a real headache. Rather than fretting about a free trade agreement with Korea, how are the Government monitoring additional red tape after having left the European single market?

Kemi Badenoch: We have the most comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU—more than with any other country in the world—so that should not be the reason for difficulties in bringing in components. If the hon. Member has something specific that we can look at, I will be happy to take a look, but we have been doing everything to ensure that trade—in auto in particular—continues to boom, and it is booming. We were able to stop the issue with rules of origin, which was going to have a deadline at the end of this year. In terms of specific components that are having trouble getting across the border, I will need a bit more detail to provide him with an answer, but that is not about leaving the EU.

Allan Dorans: India is the second largest market for Scottish whisky in the world, making it an extremely important market for the Scottish economy. Currently, whisky exported to India has a 150% import tariff placed on it. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that, in any trade deal signed with India, that tariff is reduced?

Greg Hands: We are engaged in a live negotiation with India at the moment and the hon. Member would not expect me to comment on the progress of a live negotiation. India is obviously in a pre-election period as well. However, I can tell him that Scotch whisky tariffs are very much part of that negotiation; everybody knows that that is one of the key UK objectives. May I perhaps add that, if we do get a good deal on Scotch whisky, I will look forward to the SNP for the first time actually voting for a trade deal with India?

Michael Ellis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be odd and inappropriate for the United Kingdom to impose any form of arms embargo against Israel when His Majesty’s armed forces are in the region and working with Israel to provide humanitarian support, and the UK would expect Israel to help in the protection of His Majesty’s forces?

Kemi Badenoch: My right hon. and learned Friend makes a good point. The Prime Minister addressed this issue yesterday. I know that there is a lot of interest in arms exports to Israel, and yesterday my entire Department was blockaded by protesters, meaning that civil servants who needed to get to work could not do so. The Government continue to monitor closely the situation in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. All export licence applications are assessed on a case-by-case basis against the strategic export licensing criteria. The Government take their defence export responsibilities extremely seriously and operate some of the most robust export controls in the world.

Pauline Latham: Could the Secretary of State explain what she is doing to help businesses in my constituency that have difficulties because we do not have the skills to increase the business—they cannot expand because they lack some skills? Could she explain what she is doing to help with that skills shortage?

Kevin Hollinrake: I thank my hon. Friend for championing businesses in her constituency. We are putting £3.8 billion into skills training for people who work for businesses, which is important. We are also improving skills for entrepreneurs and business owners through our help to grow management programme—it can be found on the help to grow webpage—a 12-week mini-MBA, which is 90% funded by the Government. We also have “Help to Grow: Management Essentials”, which offers two hours of totally free online training for aspirant new business owners.

Nick Smith: Can the Secretary of State tell us about the UK’s supply of cyber-security professionals and whether a lot of that work is now being offshored?

Kemi Badenoch: I am afraid that I do not have the details to answer that question. On the face of it, given the information I have, it is not something I have heard before, but we can write back with more information. However, it does not sound like that is the case.

Tonia Antoniazzi: In my constituency we have the fantastic company Selwyn’s, whose seafood is first class. It exports a lot; what is the Government’s current assessment of the export of cockles and other seafood in the Welsh market?

Greg Hands: I thank the hon. Lady for her question and her interest in this important sector. We regularly meet the UK seafood sector, which can often be subject to very high tariffs from foreign markets, but the UK’s quality shines through. It is a key part of many of our current trade negotiations. I urge her to watch this space. We are always happy to meet the company concerned, but I can reassure her that when it comes to seafood exports, the Department is constantly engaged both in trade policy and in the support we give our exporters.

Business of the House

Nick Smith: Could I please ask the Leader of the House for the forthcoming business?

Penny Mordaunt: The business for the week commencing 6 May will include:
Monday 6 May—The House will not be sitting.
Tuesday 7 May—General debate on defence.
Wednesday 8 May—Consideration in Committee of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.
Thursday 9 May—General debate on miners and mining communities, followed by a general debate on the BBC mid-term charter review. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 10 May—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 13 May includes:
Monday 13 May—Motion to approve the draft Procurement Regulations 2024, followed by a motion to approve the draft Agriculture (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2024, followed by debate on a motion on the risk-based exclusion of Members of Parliament.
Tuesday 14 May—Motion to approve the draft Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (Amendment of Schedule A2) Order 2024, followed by a motion to approve the draft code of practice on fair and transparent distribution of tips.
Wednesday 15 May—Remaining stages of the Criminal Justice Bill (day 1).
Thursday 16 May—Business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 17 May—Private Members’ Bills.

Nick Smith: I thank the Leader the House for the forthcoming business.
I pay tribute to the former Member for Hazel Grove Lord Stunell, who sadly passed away this week. Our thoughts are with his family and friends.
I welcome to our Benches my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter). His words on how the Government have run down our NHS speak for millions. It is remarkable that the Conservative majority of 80 has been almost halved in four years.
This week, there has been a victory for the victims of the infected blood scandal regarding the deadline for compensation. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) for her tireless work on this cause. Could the Leader of the House outline when the timetable for compensation will be set out?
Closer to home, people across south Wales are troubled by the job losses at Tata Steel in Port Talbot. Will the Government work with Tata to ensure that compulsory redundancies will be avoided? Time is of the essence, and there are worried steelworker families across south Wales.
The business for next week is light, with no votes until Wednesday. We can guess why the Prime Minister would want to keep his parliamentary colleagues off the estate. The internal politics of the Tory party have become so febrile that they are getting in the way of good governance. While our constituents face ever higher bills, the Government have simply run out of steam. Tomorrow, we will hear the verdict of the voters. In recent months we have begun to see the runners and riders for the next Tory leadership contest. The Leader of the House says that she has the Prime Minister’s back. Coincidentally, she has been supporting her colleagues up and down the country. Following on from schnapps with Shapps, can we look forward to gin with Jenrick or perhaps Pimm’s with Penny? I am a Scrabble fan, but there is a new game of political Cluedo coming along. Who could be the one to strike the fatal blow against the Prime Minister? Will it be cocktails with Kemi in the garden? My money is on the Leader of the House with the sharpened Telegraph column in the drawing room.
Another possible leadership contender is the Foreign Secretary, Lord Cameron. Has he recused himself from part of his role? That point was raised twice last week at Cabinet Office questions, with no clarity provided. Our parliamentary scrutiny is weakened when the Foreign Secretary is out of reach in the other place. Lord Cameron has unanswered questions from Members of this House. He is yet to reply to my letters asking about his time at scandal-hit Greensill Capital. One question was about his use of private planes and personal taxation. We learned this week that Lord Cameron still enjoys VIP air travel. Taxpayers had to foot the bill for his trip to central Asia in a luxurious private jet. How does the Leader of the House think that looks to struggling families across our country dealing with a cost of living crisis?
We wish the Leader of the House, the Foreign Secretary and fellow leadership rivals well. We may well see them touring the TV studios. The Prime Minister has hinted that he may call a general election this summer if his party performs well today, or he may cling on as the clock runs down. Mr Speaker, you can understand the Prime Minister’s hope that something will crop up, but after 14 years in charge it is clear that it is time for change. Each Thursday morning, the Leader of the House puts on a good turn. Some say it is a dress rehearsal for the following Wednesday lunchtime. Who knows? This time it may come to pass.

Penny Mordaunt: First of all, I would like to join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to Lord Stunell of Hazel Grove, who sadly passed away on Monday. He entered the House of Commons in 1997, leaving for the Lords in 2015. He was Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government in the coalition Government and I know Members on all sides of the House will mourn his loss. On our Benches, we are particularly grateful to him for being an effective and collaborative Minister in the coalition, working alongside colleagues to bring in the Localism Act 2011 and drawing up the national planning policy framework. I hope that the many tributes paid to him in the coming days will be a comfort to his loved ones.
I join with the many remarks made by colleagues regarding the tragic loss of Daniel Anjorin, and also the incident in Sheffield. My thoughts, and I am sure those  of the whole House, are with all those affected, especially Daniel’s family. I also pay tribute to the police for their courage. They often get a hard time from us in this place, but we should never forget the risks they take and the service they do us. I know the House will also be glad to see His Majesty the King out and about with the public again. I wish all candidates in today’s elections good luck.
The hon. Gentleman tempts me, but I am going to resist, because there is nothing I could say that would be more detrimental to the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter)—to his character, his integrity, his standing in his community and his future prospects—than what he has done to himself. I think that is just about dawning on him.
I, too, welcome the progress on the infected blood issue. The hon. Gentleman knows that the Paymaster General has set out the timetable for the body to be established on 20 May. We now have a clear timetable that I hope will give confidence to all those infected and affected by this terrible scandal.
I will certainly make sure that the hon. Gentleman’s comments on Tata Steel are heard by the Secretary of State.
I have to break it to the hon. Gentleman that it is not going to be Pimm’s with Penny. I am more of a pints with Penny person. But yes, I too have read that I am to be installed, rather like a new boiler, into No. 10 next week. I have to say, Mr Speaker, that there is as much truth to those stories as there is to Labour’s assurances to its business community that it is not actually going to do the things that it has been saying it is going to do and has promised its union paymasters.
Let me say again that I support our Prime Minister, and I will continue to support him after this weekend and beyond, because his plan is working. I will do everything I can to ensure that Labour does not get a chance to wreck the nation again. The nation has chosen a new trajectory to protect its border, to enable growth, and to trade more with the world to strengthen its partnerships with allies. Our exports are 2% above 2018 levels, and we are the fourth largest exporter overall and the largest net exporter of financial and insurance services in the world. Trade barriers have led to a £15 billion uplift for UK businesses in the last five years, and since 2010 UK manufacturing growth has been higher than that of any other G7 nation. We are on the right path, and we have to stick to it. I do not want to give Labour the chance to unpick all that we have done, from Brexit to trade union reforms.
The hon. Gentleman asked about a general election, and whether something was going to crop up. I think that something is going to crop up. Whether it is pensions, the NHS, rail, tax or welfare, the Labour party claims that it is going to do one thing but is planning another, and I think that the public will see through that. It is the most audacious deception since the big bad wolf donned a winceyette nightie and asked Little Red Riding Hood to admire his upper dentures, but unlike red Riding Hood the British people have met this wolf before, and they remember that the story does not end well.
The British people remember how disastrously Labour ran our trains, and we have read this week that to improve efficiency, Labour plans to run fewer trains.  They remember MRSA-infected hospitals, and they are now seeing the unforgivable state of the NHS in Wales as it struggles with a reduced budget. Labour is responsible for that, as it is Labour that cut the NHS budget. They remember Labour council tax hikes for pensioners and others on fixed incomes, which constituted the largest increase in their outgoings. In government Labour doubled council tax, and in Wales it has tripled it. The British public will look at the council league tables, out today, and notice that the worst services are provided by Labour councils, those charging the highest taxes are Labour local authorities, and the areas with the worst crime rates are Labour-controlled; and where do we see the lowest employment rate, the smallest pay packets and the worst NHS waiting lists in the whole UK? In Labour-run Wales.
Always, every single time Labour is in office, every single time the British people give Labour a chance, they find themselves worse off, poorer and less safe, badly served and with more unemployment, and they see that the nation is weaker. At least those in the Labour party are consistent. So I say to the British people, “Don’t give them the chance to do it again.”
Further business will be announced in the usual way.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Father of the House.

Peter Bottomley: The question of local council elections has been raised. Those who want some amusement can read Acts 5:41, quoted in today’s Times and provided by the Bible Society, although I am not suggesting that my right hon. Friend should read it now.
I walked here today through Victoria Tower Gardens, where it is still impossible to walk along the river because of the barricades around the Buxton memorial fountain, which are far too extensive. If people care about memorials in Victoria Tower Gardens, they ought to make sure that the gardens are properly accessible whenever that is possible.
The Select Committee on the Holocaust Memorial Bill reported recently in document HC121, and I have tabled early-day motion 711—I do not expect my right hon. Friend to respond to this today.
[That this House notes the First Special Report of the Holocaust Memorial Bill Select Committee, HC121, on the problems with the current proposal and the restrictions faced by the Committee considering the hybrid Bill; respects the conclusions and recommendations on page 20; agrees with the list of matters related to the current proposals for a Holocaust Memorial and believes these need updated attention on deliverability from the Infrastructure Commission, from the National Audit Office on likely capital costs and recurrent annual costs, from the Chancellor on future funding control, and from the police and security services on maintaining unfettered public access for use of Victoria Tower Gardens while protecting the Memorial; asks His Majesty's Government and the Holocaust Memorial Foundation agency to commission the views of the property consultants on a comparison of the current proposal by Sir David Adjaye in Victoria Tower Gardens with viable alternatives, to commission the full appraisal and to hold a public consultation on the selection of site; and further asks His Majesty's Government to commit to having this or an amended proposal considered first by the local planning authority before considering whether to call in  the application, noting that an open-minded observer could doubt another minister in the Levelling Up department should be asked to make an independent decision on an application by the Secretary of State.]
As the Committee has clearly indicated, before the Government think of bringing the Bill back to the Chamber of the House of Commons they need to do a number of things. First, they must review security. We have seen the Holocaust memorial in Hyde Park covered up because of marches going on around London, and everyone knows that a memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens of the kind that is proposed would be a major target. The only way of providing security is to exclude the public from this park, which is the only park for local residents.
Secondly, the National Infrastructure Commission has said that this project is undeliverable. Will the Government please ask the members of the commission whether they have changed their minds? Last year the National Audit Office reported that the costs had risen in one year from £102 million to £137 million. Will the Government please ask its members whether that can be reviewed? How will the Chancellor agree to pay running costs of between £5 million and £10 million?
I think that the Government ought to delay, do what is suggested in my early-day motion, and then report back to the House.

Lindsay Hoyle: It might be more helpful if the Father of the House applies for an Adjournment debate.

Penny Mordaunt: I am sure that my hon. Friend knows how to apply for a debate and will listen to your encouragement, Mr Speaker. I will certainly ensure, as I do every week, that the Secretary of State has heard the issues that my hon. Friend raises—I will feed them in. On the matter of security, he will know that there is a working group, led by the Houses of Parliament and those in Government, to make sure that all these very important issues are looked at.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Deidre Brock: Just when we think the Government can stoop no lower, they release a sickening detention video, using real-life trauma to show their voters how tough they are. Who instructed the civil service to produce such a piece? Can we have an apology from the Home Office for its appalling misjudgment in electioneering with this footage, and a debate on whether the concept of electoral purdah still exists? If it does, who the heck regulates it?
Meanwhile, the disastrously handled Brexit border checks are causing further chaos, as predicted. The Leader of the House may have seen the reports from the Sevington inland border facility about lorries with perishable goods, the prospect of rotting food and flowers being binned, compromised biosecurity and, of course, crashed IT systems. We have confusion, delay and additional crippling costs—otherwise known as Brexit. I was in the House yesterday for the statement that the Business and Trade Secretary hurriedly brought out, and she seemed to brush aside these failures to prepare as mere supply chain issues, preferring to brag about Brexit. The thing is, her figures rely on a growth in service exports—City pals are doing very well.
Meanwhile, the British Chambers of Commerce, which knows a thing or two about the issue, describes the much-warned-of mess at Sevington as
“the straw that breaks the camel’s back”
for many UK businesses. This is terribly serious for our small and medium-sized enterprises, particularly our farmers and fishers. Do the Government care? For the third time, I ask the Leader of the House for an urgent debate specifically on the Tory trade tax so that someone can be held responsible to the House for this cack-handed mess. Will she take it up?
It seems that business questions have become nothing more than a venue for parading opinions. As Madam Deputy Speaker had to remind the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House last week, business questions are about the business of this House, so can we leave the scripted opinions on Scotland and her Government to one side for once and have a debate, in Government time, on the unbelievable mess at Sevington and its impact on the wider supply chain? Or will she, too, just ignore this crisis of her own Government’s making, raise a laugh for her nervous Back Benchers and opine on Scotland instead—a country about which she knows little and cares less?

Penny Mordaunt: The first issue that the hon. Lady raises is a matter of taste about videos that I understand the Home Office has produced, which show, I assume for the reassurance of the British public, that those who do not have the right to remain in the UK will be deported. There are images of people being put into the back of police vehicles. Scotland has produced quite a few similar videos—although the people being put into the back of police cars have been members of the SNP. I will certainly ensure that the Home Secretary has heard the hon. Lady’s concerns, and that they are taken into account.
The hon. Lady asserts various things about the border operating model. Many of the things that she points to are not true. The system has not gone down, and she is incorrect about the other issues that her party has been reporting. Some customers are having issues, but they are being resolved. I really hope that the SNP will one day acknowledge the hard work of Scotland’s business community, including businesses that are providing services and exporting them around the world.
We are the largest net exporter of financial and insurance services, and many of those businesses are in the hon. Lady’s constituency and the surrounding area. Edinburgh is the second largest financial centre in Europe, behind only the City of London, which is something to be immensely proud of. The work that we are doing not just on trade deals, but on our memorandums of understanding—for example, with the United States at state level—means that it is easier for an accountant in her constituency to work on a project in the United States than it is for an accountant in the state next door. That is something to be celebrated, and has led to our being the fourth largest exporter overall. I hope that the hon. Lady might reflect on that and consider it in her exchange with me next week.

Alec Shelbrooke: I am proud of the work that I and colleagues across the House did, along with our dear, departed friend Sir David Amess, to raise the issue of endometriosis, a terrible  disease that affects millions of women across the country. It is only since we started to raise the issues around it that its profile has risen. I am surprised to learn how many young women do not know about the disease, which is not in the sex and health education curriculum in schools. Can we have a debate, through the Department for Education, on ensuring that gynaecological diseases are in the curriculum for both girls and boys, because if someone does not know a disease exists, how will they know they might have it?

Penny Mordaunt: I thank my right hon. Friend for all the work he is doing alongside the all-party parliamentary group on endometriosis to raise awareness of this condition and to ensure that there is improving care. He will know that we have invested £25 million to roll out women’s health hubs across the country, not just to tackle backlogs but to provide information and raise awareness. I will ensure that the Secretary of State for Education has heard what he has said today.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.

Ian Mearns: I apologise to the House for my absence over the last two weeks. I am glad to say that things are improving as we deal with a very difficult family situation.
The Leader of the House was kind enough to mention that the Backbench Business Committee has been allocated Thursday 16 May, and it will be our intention to put on a debate on the parliamentary ombudsman’s report on the state pension age for women.
All Chamber slots up to the Whitsun recess are now allocated, but we still have several Westminster Hall slots to allocate for the new, improved start time of 12.30 pm on Thursdays, which seems to be working quite well. We have three slots to allocate between now and the Whitsun recess, and we would welcome applications.

Penny Mordaunt: Mr Speaker, I am sure you will agree that there is no need for the hon. Gentleman to apologise. I hope he heard all our good wishes to him and his family while he was away.
I thank the hon. Gentleman again for advertising the forthcoming Backbench Business debates. The Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign is a topic that many Members will welcome, and they will want to attend and take part.
I also thank the hon. Gentleman for being greatly responsible for the new Westminster Hall start time, which he has also advertised today.

Alicia Kearns: Transport for the East Midlands has found that 60% of drivers feel unsafe driving on the A1, and over half report either being in an accident or knowing someone who has been in one. In 2022, there were 500 collisions on the A1, which is 26% more than on the A5 and 16% more than on the A2. Can we please have a debate in Government time on safety upgrades to the A1? This affects dozens of constituencies, as the A1 is the longest road in this country. Will my right hon. Friend also kindly advise on when we can expect to see the next review of upgrading  A roads to motorways? This is the No. 1 issue for my constituents. I have sat in traffic on the A1 on many a school run after appalling accidents that take one or two days to clear.

Penny Mordaunt: I thank my hon. Friend for her work on this issue, which is of huge importance to her constituents, and for her diligence in consistently raising it with the Government. She will know that the next draft of the road investment strategy, covering 2025 to 2030, will be published shortly, and I will ensure that the Secretary of State for Transport has heard what she has said today. I also understand that the roads Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), is happy to meet her to discuss these specific concerns.

Wera Hobhouse: First, I thank the Leader of the House for her kind words about Lord Stunell of Hazel Grove. We lost a wonderful friend and colleague, who, until the very end, campaigned for his community and called out injustices across the country. My sincere condolences go to his family at this time.
We Liberal Democrats have for many years called for tougher controls on UK exports of arms to ensure they are not used in human rights abuses. We have called for a presumption of denial to apply to countries whose Governments are listed in the Foreign Office’s annual “Human Rights and Democracy” report. A presumption of denial would mean that the default position of the UK Government is not to permit arms exports. For many years, the Foreign Office has listed human rights issues arising from action that the Israeli Government have carried out in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. In the light of a possibly imminent humanitarian catastrophe in Rafah, if the Israeli Government are carrying out their threat to attack, may we have an urgent debate in Government time about UK arms exports to the middle east?

Penny Mordaunt: I send our thoughts to all Liberal Democrats, who have lost a treasured member of their party. It is said of Andrew Stunell that he was the activists’ activist, and I know that he will be greatly missed.
On UK arms export control, the hon. Lady will know that we have stringent policies in this country and that the actions that are taken stemming from those policies are scrutinised by this House. We take this incredibly seriously. As for the specifics, I also point her to the fact that we have seen Israel have to defend itself against the most unwarranted and reckless attack from Iran. It is very important not only that we say that Israel has a right to defend itself, but, because it is one of our allies and partners, that we understand our obligations to enable it to do so. These are difficult matters and she will know that both the Government’s policy and the procedures in this House to scrutinise the actions that come from this policy are stringent indeed.

Selaine Saxby: “The Long Call” by Ann Cleeves was written about my constituency and filmed there. Inspired by the Woodyard community centre in the novel, a number of third sector organisations are looking to support and bring together different third sector groups in a safe and accessible space for work, ideally breathing life back into one of the derelict buildings that North Devon has far too many of. Might  my right hon. Friend lend her signature to a copy of the novel for the charities involved, in order to help raise much-needed funds? Will she also help us secure a debate in Government time on how we can ensure that small third sector organisations best work together to share administrative costs?'

Penny Mordaunt: I thank my hon. Friend for again attending business questions to shine a spotlight on some good work going on in her constituency. I would be very happy to do as she asks, and I thank her for bringing this interesting initiative and the work of third sector organisations in her constituency to the House’s attention.

Tonia Antoniazzi: Three members of the Williams family in Gowerton, in my constituency, have had their His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs contact address changed to the same unknown address without their knowledge, consent or authorisation. As well as raising clear general data protection regulation concerns, that is having huge implications for Department for Work and Pensions issues that they face, and impacting on their credit score. I have seen the HMRC response to the mother’s complaint—it gave no answers; I have seen all the correspondence. The family has had phone calls from bailiffs and they are scared. They are capable, competent people but they are unable to get a response. Does the Leader of the House share my concerns about this serious data breach? Will she alert and raise this issue with the relevant Ministers and Departments, and advise me on how to resolve it?

Penny Mordaunt: I am sorry to hear that the hon. Lady’s constituents are suffering in that way. The situation sounds completely bonkers and if she gives me further details after business questions, we will get it sorted this afternoon. Her constituents should not have to put up with that.

Pauline Latham: The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) seems to be really pleased with the Opposition’s new recruit, but it will make not one jot of difference to their voting figures because the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), who has moved sides, is rarely in the House.
I have spoken before about my Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Act 2022. It came into force in February last year, and makes it a criminal offence to exploit vulnerable children by arranging for them to be married. I have spoken to teachers and lecturers who know nothing about the Act. We must ensure that teachers, lecturers, faith leaders and the police know how to spot the signs of potential forced or arranged marriages. Will the Leader of the House speak to her colleagues across Government to ensure that we get these messages across much more effectively to communities throughout the country?

Penny Mordaunt: I thank my hon. Friend for all the work she has done on this subject. She has campaigned diligently on it, and made a huge difference to the lives of many people. The forced marriage unit, which is run jointly by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Home Office, is leading the Government’s work in this area. It is running outreach and undertaking  casework, and operates both inside and outside the UK. I will ensure the relevant Minister and officials have heard her suggestions on how its work can be enhanced.

Gareth Thomas: The situation in Gaza continues to be profoundly disturbing. We need a humanitarian ceasefire, all the hostages brought home, and no incursion by the Israel Defence Forces into Rafah; that would be catastrophic. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency is pivotal to avoiding famine in Gaza and for the future of Palestinians more generally. Could we have a debate in Government time on why Ministers will not yet restart funding to UNRWA, given the call by no less than the UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, for donors to restart that funding?

Penny Mordaunt: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising those concerning matters. I will certainly make sure that the Foreign Secretary has heard the concerns he has raised. Aside from the immediate issues on which the hon. Gentleman is primarily focused, UNRWA has been financially fragile for a long time, with little long-term financial planning and security. There are many issues that the Foreign Secretary and his team will want to consider before taking a decision on whether to restart funding.

Nicholas Fletcher: Hayfield Lane Primary School in Doncaster is a great school, with great teachers, a great head, Mrs Tempest, and wonderful children. Sadly, the Labour Mayor of Labour-controlled Doncaster Council has failed this great school. Her dither and delay is a disaster, and it is affecting our children. Despite many years of letters, phone calls, meetings and false promises, the school still has a leaky roof, soaked carpets, water in the electric system, mould in the classrooms and a smell of damp throughout. It is a disgrace that the Mayor is allowed to subject our most vulnerable—our children—to that. Can we have a debate on the need for elected Mayors to step up and do their job of maintaining schools, like Hayfield Lane Primary School, instead of constantly blaming the Government for their own shortcomings?

Penny Mordaunt: I thank my hon. Friend for standing up for, and campaigning on behalf of, parents and children in his constituency. His local authority has been allocated £900,000 for this financial year, to be prioritised across its schools, including the school he mentions. That is on top of the school rebuilding programme, which is transforming buildings across the country, including three in the Doncaster local authority area. I know that my hon. Friend has raised and campaigned on the matter considerably. He will know that where there are serious problems with school buildings and the responsible bodies that are supposed to be looking after them fail, the Department for Education will provide additional advice and support on a case-by-case basis. I will write to the Secretary of State for Education this afternoon and ask that her Department meets my hon. Friend to discuss this serious matter. Doncaster local authority is failing in its duty, and that needs to be addressed.

Patrick Grady: The Leader of the House has announced all kinds of worthy general debates, including on statutory instruments, leaving plenty  of time for Dissolution and wash-up, if need be, but she has not announced any Opposition days. She will be in receipt of a letter from the Chair of the Procedure Committee, which says:
“If, however, the Government has specific proposals in relation to any changes it envisages to Standing Orders”
on Opposition days,
“the Committee would be willing to examine and consult on such proposals”.
It goes on:
“In the meantime, however, we expect that the Government will not ‘hold hostage’ the scheduling of any further Opposition Days to the completion of any such work, as to do so would be profoundly unfair on opposition parties.”
Will the Leader of the House confirm that she is not holding Opposition days hostage?

Penny Mordaunt: I can confirm that, and I hope to be able to schedule some more Opposition day debates soon, but we want some assurances about the processes that will govern them. I know that everyone agrees that it is incredibly important the rights of minority parties be protected in this place. That is the point of those debates, and we should have confidence in them in the future.

Michael Ellis: Can we have a debate on antisemitism at UK universities? There are reports in today’s press that some groups wish to replicate American-style protests, during which there has been rioting and criminal damage. At Columbia, students have chanted terrorist slogans. At Stanford,  they have worn Hamas headbands. At Princeton, they have flown the Hezbollah flag. At Harvard, they have torn down the stars and stripes and raised a foreign one, and at George Washington, they called for the “final solution”, and posted signs saying that they would not disperse until Jews go back to their “real homes”. We do not want this type of terrorist-supporting delinquency at UK universities. Does the Leader of the House agree that the Government and Opposition parties must combine to do everything they can to stop such things happening here?

Penny Mordaunt: My right hon. and learned Friend is right to draw attention to the disgusting scenes that we have seen in some universities in the United States. Those activities are being met with the appropriate action, and some universities have taken a very strict stance on them. I think and hope that all UK universities will be in no doubt about their responsibilities to all who attend their campuses and facilities, but particularly those in communities who feel under attack. That is what we expect of them; we hope and expect that they will meet the notion of similar protests with an extremely strict response.

Tan Dhesi: The London Standard, the Slough Observer and other media outlets have recently reported serious bribery allegations made against Slough borough councillors heading up the planning process. That is extremely concerning. Complaints and rumours have circulated around the town for months. Does the Leader of the House not agree that it is critical that the police delve deeply into the matter, and do a thorough investigation, in order to restore public trust  and confidence in elected representatives? Not questioning under oath the credible businesses that have been brave enough to put their concerns in writing, as well as those accused of bribery, would be a huge disservice to democracy. Will she also ensure that the Home Secretary takes an active interest in this critical matter?

Penny Mordaunt: I am responsible for many things, but operational police matters is not one of them. I will certainly make sure that the Home Secretary has heard what the hon. Member has said.

Virginia Crosbie: The UK hedgehog population is in sharp decline. Next week is Hedgehog Awareness Week and an opportunity to promote the plight of this beloved, iconic species. It costs around £50 to look after a hedgehog admitted to rescue. Anglesey Hedgehog Rescue is run by brilliant volunteers Sue Timperley, Debbie Evans and Chris Mead, and to raise funds, they are running a name the hedgehog competition. Will the Leader of the House take part? What would her hedgehog name be?

Penny Mordaunt: May I first congratulate my hon. Friend on raising awareness of this much-loved critter? I also congratulate the volunteers at Anglesey Hedgehog Rescue, and I wish them well in their endeavours. Given that these little creatures are prickly, they move very slowly—definitely below 20 mph—and curl into a ball when challenged, I am tempted to say that Welsh Labour would be an appropriate name, but that would perhaps be doing the hoglet a disservice, so instead, given that both our constituencies are by the sea, how about “Urchin”?

Neale Hanvey: Yesterday’s judgment from the president of the family division of the High Court concerning the practices of online, Singapore-registered GenderGP set out the following facts. Testosterone was prescribed to a 15-year-old girl with a co-morbid diagnosis of autism and anorexia, in a “negligent approach” that led to “dangerously high” serum levels, placing her at “risk of sudden death”. There was no physical examination, “extremely poor quality” psychological assessment, and no record of counselling or informed consent. An NHS paediatrician checked the girl’s serum levels against those of an adult male. I have asked this before, but these scandals keep happening, and I will continue to raise them in this place: can we have a full debate on how we extract gender ideology’s influence from our public bodies and Government policy, and protect young people from these online charlatans?

Penny Mordaunt: I am very sorry to hear about the case that the hon. Gentleman raises. It is right that we should have the same scrutiny in this area of medicine as we do in any other, whether in the NHS or in private practice. I will ensure that the Secretary of State has heard what he said about that case. He will know that she is working within her jurisdiction in the NHS to ensure that healthcare professionals and the bodies that scrutinise them know what their responsibilities are, particularly in this area.

Andrew Jones: I recently met the local constituency group Pumping Marvellous, a support group for people with heart failure. Members talked about how the NHS services  that they use could be improved through integration—specifically through digitisation, which would enable better patient record access. In the Budget, the Chancellor announced £3.4 billion for increased NHS digital investment, which will unlock £35 billion of savings. Can we have a debate on NHS digitisation, so that we can explore the benefits for patients, doctors and nurses, and ensure that the voices of support groups and users are heard?

Penny Mordaunt: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that. We know that where good reforms have been brought in, patient outcomes are vastly improved. We will all have examples of that from our primary care practices, and particularly our hospitals. We want to ensure that that is sped up, and that artificial intelligence helps with tailoring treatments and interventions and further increases good patient outcomes. The opportunities are massive. It is a very good topic for a debate, and he will know how to apply for one.

Kevin Brennan: Has the Leader of the House had a chance to read the report of the all-party parliamentary group on music, which I chair, on artificial intelligence in music? It came out this week. If she has not, would she like me to send her a copy, so that she can consider holding a debate on the subject in Government time? It is a key issue. This technology can bring great benefits, but we must not allow it to be our master; it should be the servant of human creativity, and the creative community should have the right to protect their creations in any scheme that is agreed between industry and tech firms. Will she look at the report and consider a debate?

Penny Mordaunt: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on producing this timely and necessary report, which I am sure will be of interest to many Members of this House. I would be delighted to receive a copy, and I will ensure that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport also has one. I will invite her to follow up with him.

David Mundell: The APPG on HIV, AIDS and sexual health, which I co-chair, welcomed the recent publication by the Department of Health of the pre-exposure prophylaxis road map; however, knowledge about PrEP remains very low among certain groups, particularly in the black, Asian and minority ethnic community, and among women, so there is much more to do to raise awareness of PrEP and its possibilities. Will my right hon. Friend facilitate a meeting between the APPG, HIV groups and the Minister for public health, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), to see what we can do to tackle inequalities in the use of PrEP?

Penny Mordaunt: I thank my right hon. Friend for raising this issue. We have made huge progress in enabling people to protect themselves through access to PrEP, but he is right that awareness of the opportunity that it provides is not universal. I will ensure that the Department of Health and Social Care has heard his concerns and encourage it to do as he asks.

Allan Dorans: This week we have seen the incredible bravery of Metropolitan police officers in Hainault, who literally  ran towards a situation knowing that they were putting themselves in personal danger and at serious risk of injury or death. Two of those officers received very serious, life-changing injuries. We all owe a debt of gratitude to all police officers, who on a daily basis place themselves in such circumstances to keep us all safe.
That debt must also extend to obtaining justice for police officers who have lost their lives while on duty, and 17 April marked the 40th anniversary of the murder of WPC Yvonne Fletcher, who in 1984 was hit in the back by shots fired from inside the Libyan People’s Bureau. Despite the identity of one of the offenders being known, no one has ever been charged in connection with Yvonne’s murder. May we have a debate in Government time on the circumstances surrounding the murder of WPC Fletcher?

Penny Mordaunt: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words about those Metropolitan police officers and the police in general. I am sure the whole House will want to send our good wishes to those officers. We have heard the update that the Met chief gave on their condition, and I hope all Members will join me in wishing them a speedy recovery. I hope they are out of hospital soon. I will ensure that both the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said. He will know that Ministers work on the issue and, where they are able to have bilaterals with others who may be able to assist in this area, they do so—it is part of the script that they use when having those meetings—but I will ensure they have heard what he has said today.

Rob Butler: Last week I went to the Aylesbury Vale young enterprise company of the year finals at Aylesbury Vale Academy. The winners were a team from Aylesbury Grammar School who produced and sold biodegradable greetings cards implanted with wildflower seeds that can be planted and grown. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating them and all the other young enterprise finalists, and may we have a debate in Government time to underline the importance of teaching the value of the private sector and of the role of business in creating jobs, generating wealth and enabling the economic growth that pays for public services?

Penny Mordaunt: I thank my hon. Friend for allowing us all to send our congratulations to Aylesbury Grammar School and all those involved in that good initiative—perhaps the House of Commons gift shop would like to stock that fantastic product. I also thank him for allowing us all to reflect on the force for good in the world that enterprise and businesses represent in our local communities, not only through supporting the charity sector, but through the enormous revenues they raise to keep everything that matters to us going.

Gerald Jones: Following the Aberfan disaster in October 1966, donations from around the world were used to build the Aberfan and Merthyr Vale Community Centre. The centre has been managed by a leisure trust and is home to a library, gym and swimming pool. Until two days ago, it faced possible closure. Despite that, the trustees—none of them local—refused to engage with me, trade unions, their own staff or residents, and they only engaged with  the local authority at the eleventh hour. May we please have a debate on how charity trustees who hold cherished local assets can be held to account?

Penny Mordaunt: I am sorry to hear about the situation in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. Losing any facility is not good for a community, but losing one with such heritage and hopes for a legacy that it might deliver for its local community is very upsetting. He will know how to apply for a debate, and I encourage him to continue his work to bring together the trustees and the community. When that happens, solutions are found. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has enabled asset transfers and other things to happen in order to allow such facilities to continue, and my office stands ready to assist him in any way we can to get the right advice.

Jo Gideon: The Government’s long-term plan for towns will ensure that local people can develop plans that deliver the priorities of their community and are given the tools to change their town’s long-term future. Better access to finance for microbusinesses and social enterprises is a critical element of such a plan, and the Government could facilitate it through changes to financial regulations. Will the Leader of the House allocate Government time for a debate on the future of community enterprise and community lending, including Bank of Dave-style initiatives that drive local growth?

Penny Mordaunt: My hon. Friend raises good points and ideas. She will know that the next questions to the Chancellor will be on 7 May, and I encourage her to raise those matters with him then. I will give him the heads-up today to ensure that he has heard her sensible suggestions.

Jamie Stone: As a founding member of the Scottish constitutional convention, and the only Member of the present Commons whose signature is on Scotland’s claim of right, I know one or two things about devolution. Indeed, it will very shortly be the 25th anniversary of the first sitting of the Scottish Parliament. I politely ask whether we might have a debate on how Scottish devolution came into being, the ideals that lay behind it, and how the present Scottish Government are undermining those first ideals.

Penny Mordaunt: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that very good suggestion, and I am sure that such a debate would be well attended. Having headed up UK-wide organisations, particularly in healthcare, I know that one strength of having different systems of governance to reflect different parts of the UK is that they work together and learn from each other—how our four chief medical officers work together, for example. Devolution was envisaged as four nations working together for the common good of their citizens, but we know that is not the SNP’s interpretation of that opportunity. That would be a good debate and I encourage him to apply for it —and if he does, I will attend.

Kirsty Blackman: Outside of London, Aberdeen has the highest proportion of non-UK-born citizens anywhere on this island. Today  the Home Office looks set to remove and detain someone who fled persecution in their home country and has begun to build a life in Aberdeen. Right now, the people of my city are out on the streets making it clear that refugees are welcome in Aberdeen. What can I do to ensure that if someone is detained and removed from Aberdeen, they are given basic human necessities such as water on the hours-long journey away from our city, and to ensure that the Home Office updates the MP and answers their questions in relation to that detention?

Penny Mordaunt: The hon. Lady will know that the Home Office will always talk to Members of this House about constituency cases of whatever nature, but it is clear that, given our finite resource, we can honour our obligations to those seeking asylum here only if our asylum system can deal with the volume of people coming in. We should use those finite resources in a way that helps people, but we can also choose which individuals we want to help and ensure that people who do not have leave to remain in this country do not remain here. That is what this democratic Parliament has decided to do, because the British people wish us to do it. She ought to reflect on that.

Andrew Bridgen: There are a number of bodies that the public rely on to be impartial and to protect the public interest, including the General Medical Council, the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Civil Aviation Authority, to name but three. When independent regulators take moneys from the World Economic Forum or other vested interests, they lose their independence, so can we have a statement from the relevant Minister on how we are going to end regulatory capture, something we have seen at the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency with disastrous consequences? Can that Minister also explain why the guidance to so-called independent regulators says that it regards their regulation as a tool of government?

Penny Mordaunt: Regulators have very clear responsibilities —that is well understood. Members of this House will work with them on a whole raft of issues to raise concerns about the sector they cover and how they are operating in their local area. If the hon. Gentleman has any specific charges of a regulator not doing its job, as he knows, the Department for Business and Trade will shortly be bringing forward a White Paper about how we improve regulators in the UK. We are always interested in what can be improved, but he has made quite a serious allegation today, which he should follow up with the Secretary of State.

Christine Jardine: As millions of people across England and Wales go to vote in today’s council elections, will the Leader of the House join me in recognising the work of my constituent, the right honourable Lord Provost of Edinburgh, Robert Aldridge, who this week marks 40 years of continuous service as a councillor in Edinburgh? That longevity is the envy of many others in Scottish politics, and I am sure will be the ambition of many of those who are starting their career today.
However, like this place and many other parts of our democracy, councils do not always reflect the diversity of their area. In 2022, the Local Government Association found that 92% of councillors were white, 40% were  retired, 46% had caring responsibilities and just 12% had a disability, so may we have a debate in Government time on how we could make local government roles more accessible and more representative of their communities?

Penny Mordaunt: I am sure that the whole House sends its congratulations to Councillor Robert Aldridge on this landmark anniversary, and thanks him for both his service and his stamina in the role. The hon. Lady raises a very important point: we want many people from many different backgrounds and with many different skills to come forward and run for office. It is an excellent topic for a debate—she will know how to apply for one—but of course we can all encourage people in our communities to come forward, step up and serve.

Dave Doogan: As a child of the 1970s, I am certain that the Leader of the House will value and remember fondly the performances of AC/DC. However, she may not know that AC/DC’s frontman, Bon Scott, is no less than a child of Angus—of Kirriemuir in particular. I am certain that she will wish to welcome this weekend’s Bonfest festival, wish it every success, and congratulate DD8 Music on the promotion of that tremendous international music festival. However, one thing that causes problems for music festivals across this island is the Brexit obstructions that prevent many musicians from coming from the EU to perform in Scotland, and Scottish and English musicians from performing in the EU. Does she agree that we should have a debate in Government time about how we can best reconcile that situation with the Brexit reality that we find ourselves in?

Penny Mordaunt: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised that I disagree with his characterisation of the UK’s choice to leave the European Union as a highway to hell, but I will ensure that the relevant Minister has heard his concerns. Of course, I congratulate everyone involved in what sounds like a very jolly festival, and I hope a good time is had by all.

Richard Foord: Today we read in the press that the oil and gas company Shell will take some of its bumper profits, creamed off the top of people’s soaring energy bills, and use it for share buy-backs. Shell plans to start a £2.8 billion share buy-back scheme to inflate its own share price, rather than to help tackle the climate emergency or boost our economy. A 4% tax on share buy-backs as proposed by  the Liberal Democrats could raise about £2 billion per annum for our public services, so could we please have a debate on share buy-backs and the potential benefits of such a levy?

Penny Mordaunt: The hon. Gentleman will know that, on any such proposals that the Liberal Democrats wish to put forward, they can question the Chancellor next Tuesday when the House returns. He will also know that the Government have done a huge amount of work with both energy companies and their suppliers to assist in alleviating the cost-of-living issues that households and businesses are facing.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call Jim Shannon. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

Jim Shannon: Thank you, Mr Speaker. These are the strongest legs in the Chamber, without a doubt.
I thank the Leader of the House for the opportunity to highlight the prevention of violations of freedom of religion or belief. It has been more than a year since the outbreak of the civil war in Sudan, and Sudanese civilians certainly bear the brunt of the atrocities committed due to the fighting, with thousands killed and millions internally displaced. While His Majesty’s Government are working with others to resolve the crisis, the vulnerability of Sudanese Christians has been overlooked. Christians and their churches are being targeted, and there have been reports of rape, kidnap and looting against Christians. Even when the war ends, religious minorities fear future persecution. Will the Leader of the House join me in condemning the atrocities against Christians in Sudan, and what can she do with the Foreign Secretary and the Government to combat these crimes as they work to find a solution to the conflict?

Penny Mordaunt: I again thank the hon. Gentleman for raising awareness of an issue that has affected enormous numbers of people, but does not necessarily get the airtime on the UK media that it warrants. He will know that the Foreign Secretary and the Minister covering this region are very focused on ensuring, and will do all they can to make sure, that civilians are protected and security issues are properly addressed. As part of that, he will know that the envoy for freedom of religion or belief and the team supporting that post will be very focused on this matter. As I always do, I will make sure that the Foreign Secretary has heard his concerns, and I thank him.

Backbench Business

Security in the Western Balkans

Alicia Kearns: I beg to move,
That this House recognises the acute security situation in the Western Balkans; supports the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Kosovo and Bosnia and Herzegovina; condemns the attack by Serb nationalist militants in Banjska, Kosovo on 24 September 2023; further supports the authority of the Constitutional Court in Bosnia and Herzegovina; further condemns Russian interference in the Balkans; notes with concern pro-Russian and pro-Serbian irredentist political rhetoric in Montenegro; and urges the Government to increase its engagement with regional partners and international allies to improve the security landscape of the Western Balkans.
A pivotal moment for the western Balkans approaches —a moment that will decide whether the dream of a democratic, peaceful, Euro-Atlantic, integrated Balkans can be realised, or whether we will return to the nightmare of the 1990s. Without peace, there can be no progress, and with the threat of violence and the embrace of hatred, insecurity is bred. Today, I hope to set out some steps that the Government can take to protect peace and, as we all hope, to protect us from having to confront the dreadful alternative of conflict. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to this debate, which is very much appreciated, and I welcome the ambassadors of Bosnia and Herzegovina and of Kosovo to the Chamber.
I want to start by discussing Bosnia and Herzegovina, which, with its multi-ethnic character and constitution, acts as a linchpin for the wider region. Next year, we mark the 30th anniversary of the Dayton agreement, which brought an end to the horrors of the Bosnian war. Before the war, 34% of people in Sarajevo were married to spouses of a different ethnicity, with children who studied and played together and neighbours who cooked together, but they suddenly found themselves separated by conflict, unable to understand why their world had fallen apart and why those they had called friends shunned and abandoned them.
The tragedy of the Bosnian war is embodied in the story of the 25-year-olds Boško Brkić and Admira Ismić, known as the Romeo and Juliet of Sarajevo. Boško was a Bosnian Serb who was deeply in love with his girlfriend Admira, a Bosniak. Both were trapped in the siege of Sarajevo by the Bosnian Serb army, and attempted to escape in 1993, hoping to continue their young lives, full of hope and away from the horrors of war. As they attempted to leave the city, Boško was shot by a sniper and killed instantly. Another shot injured Admira, who in her last moments crawled to Boško and embraced his body, eventually succumbing to her wounds while she hugged her beloved. Their final embrace, as Admira lay dying, signalled the unwavering strength of their bond and represented the rejection of hatred and of ethnic division. The hopes of the young Romeo and Juliet of Sarajevo continue to be held by many people across Bosnia and Herzegovina, and it is our duty to empower them to dream of that brighter future, and to do all we can to limit the return of violence and more cruelty on the streets.

Alec Shelbrooke: I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate at a crucial time. I do not think it an exaggeration to say that the current situation is a tinderbox and on knife edge, to mix metaphors. The story she has just relayed is important. Does she agree that it illustrates that the nationalistic leaderships who wanted to stir up hatred were in such a minority, because the vast majority of the population of Bosnia and Herzegovina were unaware of their ethnic backgrounds? They saw themselves as Bosnians, and that was exploited by those nationalist tendencies.

Alicia Kearns: My right hon. Friend, unsurprisingly, is absolutely right. That is why it is so important at this time, when we see the risk of a return to the tinderbox, that we in this place attempt to safeguard the truth. We must never forget the horrors of the Bosnian war or the siege of Sarajevo, which is still the longest in modern history and where almost 12,000 civilians were killed. Neither should we forget the genocide of Srebrenica, where 8,000 men and boys were murdered, or the 100,000 people dead and the 2 million displaced.
Sadly, those who seek to break up Bosnia today use the past as a weapon, inverting it to retraumatise victims and glorify atrocities. Milorad Dodik, the so-called President of Republika Srpska, has consistently denied the Srebrenica genocide, despite a 2021 Bosnia-wide law banning genocide denial. As we know, denial is a continuation of genocide. A group of countries including Bosnia, Germany and Rwanda is bringing a resolution to the UN General Assembly formally to recognise 11 July as the international memorial day for the victims of the Srebrenica genocide. The resolution is supported by Balkan countries including Croatia, Montenegro, Albania, North Macedonia and Slovenia, yet Serbia opposes it.
Enshrining remembrance of the Srebrenica genocide and other victims of the Bosnian war in international law sends a strong message that the international community rejects historical revisionism and the weaponisation of the past. It also prevents the revictimisation of survivors, and sends a strong message to Milorad Dodik and all those who seek a return to the 1990s that we have not forgotten and we will not forget. I am grateful that the Foreign Secretary has made it clear that the UK will both vote for and promote the resolution. Some, however, are seeking to misrepresent that resolution. What it does not do is pass collective judgment against the people of Serbia. It is about individual responsibility and ending the denial of genocide to build a better future with a common language. Denial prevents communities from coming together and building new futures, and the memory of past traumas steels us in our mission to safeguard modern-day Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The Dayton agreement, to which the UK is a signatory, established the office of high representative and the constitutional court of Bosnia to ensure the state’s viability and development. Milorad Dodik has sought to violate the treaty, passing illegal laws in Republika Srpska to reject the authority of both those entities. He is now before a court on charges relating to those violations, and if found guilty will be banned from holding office and face up to five years in prison.
Predictably, rather than face up to the consequences of his actions, Dodik has threatened Bosnia and Herzegovina, stating that Republika Srpska will secede  from Bosnia if he is convicted. Republika Srpska is not Dodik; Dodik is not Republika Srpska, and he is wrong when he endangers all those who live within its environs. That cowardly attempt to shield himself behind state institutions will have dire consequences for all Bosnians, and the UK must be unequivocal in our support for the constitutional court and its judgments.
Russia has a clear interest in fomenting conflict in the Balkans to distract from its renewed illegal invasion of Ukraine. Sadly, it holds a veto over the security framework of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the renewal of EUFOR. That consequently hands it a veto over the entire region, which is akin, some might say, to handing a match to an arsonist. Eventually you will be forced to put out the fire.

Alec Shelbrooke: Just to illustrate where we are with Russia, Dodik gave the highest order of Republika Srpska to Putin.

Alicia Kearns: Dodik absolutely did do that. Once again my right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Over the next few days, there will be a great Easter coming together of Dodik, Vučić and others around a Greater Serbia, which I will touch on briefly.
I ask the Government to work with our allies to consider an alternative peacekeeping framework to EUFOR, led by NATO. The Dayton agreement gives NATO explicit permission to legally establish a force in Bosnia for peacekeeping without time limit or UN approval. There is widespread support from the Bosnian Government, and its legality under the Dayton agreement means that neither Dodik nor Putin could block it, unlike the current arrangement with EUFOR. As a minimum, the UK should send a NATO peacekeeping force to the strategic Brčko district, which I am sure my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) will speak about shortly. Even one battalion of NATO troops in Brčko would make a secession militarily impossible and have a stabilising effect on all of Bosnia’s politics.

Bob Stewart: I entirely endorse that point. A British battalion positioned in Bosnia would give a very strong signal. Frankly, a British battalion is probably the best battalion to send into such a peacekeeping situation.

Alicia Kearns: My right hon. and gallant Friend is absolutely right. To that point, I know that the Foreign Secretary, in answering questions from Members in the other place yesterday, said that he would prefer to emphasise and focus on Kosovo, but we saw that when British troops went into Kosovo last September, there was a resurgence in the delivery of the mandate. My right hon. and gallant Friend is right that British troops would make a fundamental difference. The fact that the Dayton agreement gives us explicit permission to create a new security force means that we should actively be debating it.
Finally, the UK should look at extending the sanctions levied against Dodik and other senior figures in his circle, which I was relieved to secure a few years ago. The joint sanctions with the UK and the US have begun to take serious effect, with Bosnian banks closing the accounts of those targeted. I urge the Government to consider sanctioning other figures from Republika Srpska who support laws designed to undermine the high  representative and the constitutional court, promote genocide denial and glorification, and attempt to transfer Bosnian state assets to their personal control.
Bosnia, with its multi-ethnic character and constitution, is a barometer for the entirety of the western Balkans. When threatening the break-up of Bosnia, Dodik said:
“If anybody tries to stop us, we have friends who will defend us.”
I say, let us show him that Bosnia, too, has friends, and none more steadfast than the United Kingdom. Now is the time for deterrence, diplomacy and a rejuvenated NATO to take the initiative and ensure that Bosnia’s sovereignty and security are protected.
While the situation in Bosnia is tense, Kosovo is the only country in the western Balkans to have faced an attack on its soil since our last debate on the western Balkans. The Banjska attack carried out last September saw 30 heavily armed Serb militants murder a Kosovan police officer, Afrim Bunjaku, before engaging in a firefight from the Banjska monastery. The amount of weaponry seized from the militants was truly extraordinary. I have seen it myself, and I refer to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Tan Dhesi: I thank the hon. Member for securing today’s important debate on security in the western Balkans. On a recent visit to Serbia as part of a cross-party parliamentary delegation, I witnessed the immense potential as well as the stark challenges in the region. Does she agree that the UK Government must do their level best to help to defuse tensions between Serbia and Kosovo, to ensure that the rights of minorities on both sides of the border are protected and, crucially, to promote democracy by doing their level best to reduce Russian influence in the region and in Serbia?

Alicia Kearns: Without question, everyone must help to defuse the situation and everyone must support ethnic minorities, and we should be clear that we in this place, as I will say later in my speech, want to be a friend to a democratic Serbia. That is what we all aspire to in the region.
To go back to the Banjska attack, the arsenal of those 30 militants included 41 anti-tank rocket launchers, 66 automatic rifles, two automatic grenade launchers, four mortars, two armoured vehicles and more than 50 kg of explosives. The weapon serial numbers lined up. Those were not miscellaneous items. Nor were they old or expired stock—some were just a couple of years old. I am sure the Minister will agree that such a level of weaponry is not typical for provincial militia. It therefore begs the question: who was supporting the Banjska attackers and why?
The answer may lie in some of the footage recovered from those who undertook the attack, which shows the militants training in a Serbian military base on 20 September, just four days before the attack. Likewise, some of those aforementioned serial numbers on the weaponry match up to the maintenance documents recording the same weapons as belonging to the Serbian military.
Countless times in the House—in writing and in private meetings—I have asked the Government to release an assessment of whether the Serbian state provided material and strategic support for the Banjska attack.  The US has completed a report on who is responsible and their links to the Serbian Government. Our allies need to release that urgently because truth matters and accountability matters. Without that report, the truth is denied and there is no deterrence, because impunity breeds contempt for the rule of law and order.
Swift and equitable accountability for acts of aggression is crucial if we want to discourage future violence and dispel any notion of appeasement. So I ask again: who organised the Banjska attack, who provided the weaponry and what do we assess was their intent? I would be grateful if the Minister answered that when he responds.
What we do know beyond doubt is that the attack was led by Milan Radoičić, a former vice-president of the Srpska Lista party. The current wave of tension in northern Kosovo exploded when Srpska Lista orchestrated an electoral boycott of municipal elections last May. Without the participation of Kosovan Serbs, the election returned Albanian mayors. The installation of the mayors by the Kosovan Government sparked unrest. We have all spoken about how risky that was, including I directly to the Government. However, we then saw a violent attack on Kosovo Force—KFOR—by Serbian militias that injured 25 Italian and Hungarian troops, some of whom will never walk again. At the time, the UK, the US and the EU condemned Kosovo for installing the democratically elected mayors, but did not criticise Serbia for its support of the boycott and Srpska Lista.
I wrote a joint statement, signed by 74 parliamentarians from Europe—including almost every chair of a Foreign Affairs Committee in Europe—the US and Canada, asking for a fairer approach to the crisis and for Kosovo not to be singled out. The statement, and multiple votes and debates in the EU Parliament, have shown that the international community want to see a more even-handed approach to Kosovo and Serbia.
Kosovo has since, under international pressure, facilitated a referendum in the northern municipalities to allow elections for new mayors. Srpska Lista again orchestrated a boycott, frustrating the democratic process and inflaming intercommunal tensions even further. The US has been clear now, however, that Kosovo has fulfilled its democratic obligations and the northern mayors are legitimate. The EU, unfortunately, has been less clear in its messaging, insisting on a “both sidery” approach. Can the Minister confirm that the UK recognises that Kosovo has attempted to rectify the situation under its constitution and that, regardless of boycott by Srpska Lista, the current mayors are legitimate, regardless of their ethnicity? I also point out how disappointing it is that ethnicity continues to play such an important role in the Balkans.
Despite constant impediments by Russia and Serbia, Kosovo is on the verge of membership of the Council of Europe, with its application moving to the Committee of Ministers for approval this month. Membership would mark a vital milestone in Kosovo’s progress from the dark days of the 1990s. Kosovo’s journey is one in which we have played an important role, which we should all be proud of. However, some internationally have said that Kosovo should be admitted only if it creates an association of Serb-majority municipalities. The UK should reject that firmly. While I do not want another Republika Srpska in the western Balkans at all, an ASM will be created as part of the Belgrade-Pristina  dialogue, but it cannot be rushed or extracted through external pressure. Can the Minister confirm that the Foreign Secretary will vote for Kosovo’s admission to the Council of Europe this month, regardless of progress on the ASM, and encourage all allies to do so?
More broadly, the UK, as a former member of the Quint, should assume a more active role in the peace talks. Our current passivity is untenable in the face of such a volatile situation. We are no longer constrained by EU consensus and non-recognisers, and we must be more inventive in diplomacy. We must find not just our voice but our backbone, stop standing on the sidelines and take action when we have a duty to support our allies.
Equally, the UK should be engaged with the five EU states that do not recognise Kosovo’s sovereignty to help boost Kosovo’s trajectory towards EU and NATO membership while solidifying the inviolability of its territorial integrity. The US and the EU should also adopt a resolute posture when addressing Serbia’s leadership for their role in stoking instability, aligning with Putin and increasing autocratic tendencies at home and abroad. The UK and Kosovo have a fantastic relationship, and I thank the Foreign Secretary for visiting Kosovo earlier this year to demonstrate that partnership. The bond was forged during NATO’s intervention in 1999, when British troops helped to avert further atrocities and put Kosovo on a path towards democracy, which it has fully embraced.
Our armed forces continue to play a role. After the Banjska attack, the Princess of Wales Royal Regiment quickly deployed to bolster KFOR, acting professionally to defuse the situation. Likewise, the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers deployed last year in a period of heightened tensions. The British Army is highly respected and appreciated, and I am sure the whole House will join me in thanking each and every soldier who served there with distinction. They made an enormous difference.
I urge the Government to work with NATO partners to ensure that KFOR is given the support and taskings it needs to maintain peace and stability across Kosovo. We should consider the establishment of a new security alliance between the US, the UK and other willing NATO member states with Kosovo to help to allay the immediate security concerns. Let me give an example of why that is needed. Last December, President Vučić said that Serbia should simply follow the example of Azerbaijan in Nagorno-Karabakh and wait for special geopolitical circumstances to allow it to reclaim Kosovo. That is a statement of intent and should not be ignored.
Such comments from a head of state are unacceptable. Indeed, Vučić threatened me last year for speaking out against the smuggling of weapons into Kosovo. My warnings were decried by many, yet what I predicted devastatingly came to pass in Banjska. I am grateful to the Speaker and to this House for the support I was given at that time.
There were also reports of electoral irregularities during the Serbian election and the bussing in of people, followed by the opposition MP Nikola Sandulović being kidnapped and brutally beaten by Serbian authoritarian terrorists. It is fitting that the Serbian opposition operates under the banner of “Serbia against violence”. We in this House want to be friends with a democratic Serbia. We want free and fair Serbian elections. There needs to be political reform, and that begins with free and fair  elections. I fear that we are not seeing that, especially with Xi Jinping today in Serbia encouraging it to join BRICS.

Tan Dhesi: During a recent cross-party parliamentary delegation visit to Albania, we witnessed for ourselves—thanks to fruitful meetings with the President, the Speaker, Ministers, MPs and others to help strengthen ties—that Albania is a close, trusted ally in defence and migration. The UK Government are helping to support a great deal of work to tackle modern slavery. We also witnessed the UK Government supporting youth initiatives in Kukës. There was also considerable concern in Albania, and during my recent meeting with the British Albanian diaspora, about the sovereignty of Kosovo. Does the hon. Lady agree that the British Government must work with Albania and other allies to ensure that we help to protect Kosovan sovereignty?

Alicia Kearns: Yes, we must do that.
I had hoped to touch on Montenegro, but I will conclude. We can protect the truth in Bosnia by voting for a UN resolution to commemorate the Srebrenica genocide. We can end Dodik’s threats of secession by transitioning to a NATO-led peacekeeping mission under the provisions of the Dayton agreement. We can continue our successful programme of sanctions to shut down the accounts of those who threaten peace. In Kosovo, we can build on the UK’s proud legacy by voting to admit Kosovo to the Council of Europe, and we can redouble our commitment to KFOR and extend its mandate by taking a more proactive approach to countering militias and criminality. We can commit to a fairer and more even-handed approach to the Belgrade-Pristina dialogue, and in Serbia we can work with international partners to promote free and fair elections and a media environment.
We must be clear that we stand on the side of the people of Serbia, and that irredentist dreams care little about the people of the Balkans. It is within our power to support stability and security through deterrence and being resolute in our commitment to the region. Inaction is a choice that we cannot make. We must not step back and we must not look away.

Eleanor Laing: I call Jim Shannon.

Jim Shannon: Thank you so much for calling me so early, Madam Deputy Speaker. I really appreciate that. I was rather caught off balance, to be truthful.

Eleanor Laing: I checked with Mr Speaker that it was constitutionally all right for me to do that. We were both rather surprised to find this situation.

Jim Shannon: Madam Deputy Speaker, you, Mr Speaker and I very much believe in the constitution, so we are on the same page. Thank you so much.
I commend the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) for leading the debate with such a detailed and helpful contribution. I also commend her for her leadership as Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and for her stance in this Chamber on these  issues in relation to not just the Balkans, but everywhere. She knows I am impressed by her contribution and what she does.
The current security situation in the western Balkans has prompted considerable international concern. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, with its history of engagement and long-standing partnerships in the region, has also raised its voice to the challenges that threaten the development of the western Balkans into a more stable and resilient region. With that in mind, it is really important to be here to discuss how we can provide further support and do more. There are more elegant speakers than I in the Chamber. I look forward to everyone’s contributions.
The situation is particularly worrying due to Russian interference that continues to destabilise and polarise the region. The hon. Lady referred to that in her introduction. Russia considers the western Balkans as an important region in which to exercise its foreign policy by inciting instability and division, ultimately aiming to assert its place as a great power in the region. Media and disinformation are some of Russia’s great tools in accomplishing that, and it uses them in Ukraine and all over the world. It is not the only one doing it.
Russia continues to interfere in the politics of Montenegro, often through Serbia; some nationalist Serbs in Montenegro are using media, specifically social networks, to promote Russia and pro-Serbian irridentist political rhetoric. The gravity of the situation is clear. I am concerned that any Russian involvement in the western Balkans serves only to undermine democracy, escalate tensions and destabilise the region. Indeed, in the axis of evil, Russia is right there leading at the top of the pyramid, along with others across the world.
I am very much looking forward to the contributions of the shadow Ministers and, in particular—if I can say so, Madam Deputy Speaker—my good friend the Minister, who always encapsulates our thoughts and concerns in a way that encourages us. I look forward to what he will say.
I think it was the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton who, in November 2022, instigated the last debate on the western Balkans. I spoke in that debate—I think that was the last time we debated this issue—and I reaffirm my position that Putin’s regime is the greatest threat to prosperity and peace in the Balkans. I condemn any Russian interference in the region. I ask our Government, our Minister and others to join me and others in this House in doing so. It is clear that Russia is a danger to peace not only in the Balkans, but in the world, and in Europe in particular. Is it any wonder that many other countries—Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Germany and all those within the Russian axis some time ago—all fear their very survival from Russia’s intent?
The Russia-Ukraine crisis poses an additional concern to security and stability in the western Balkans. While Russia’s invasion of Ukraine prompted some Balkan Governments to distance themselves from Moscow, Serbia has shown its commitment to its strong ties with Russia by refusing to support the EU sanctions regime amidst the ongoing conflict. Again, the influence of the axis of evil is clear. It relies on Russia for gas and oil, and on Russia’s support for its denial of Kosovo’s independence. However, Serbia’s support for the UN resolution denouncing Russian aggression against Ukraine and its refusal to recognise Russian annexation of Ukrainian  territory suggests that Russia is gradually losing its stronghold on the country. Only time will tell, but it would be very helpful, Minister, to have the thoughts of the Government and the Department on that. Do they see a gradual moving away by Serbia from Russian influence? Some indications show that, but whether they are strong enough and deep enough only time will tell.

Alicia Kearns: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that in the last few days Aleksandar Vulin—a former spy chief for Serbia who, having been sanctioned by the United States Government for his involvement in gangs and narcotics, moved to Republika Srpska and was made a senator for life—has just been brought back as Deputy Prime Minister. Does he agree that that is gravely concerning, and is relevant to his point about people being put in place who have been sanctioned by the United States and are strong fans of Russia? Does he agree that it can be destabilising and make our partnership with Serbia challenging, especially when it comes to defence and security matters?

Jim Shannon: The hon. Lady’s tremendous knowledge of this part of the world in particular, and the interest that she pursues so assiduously, cannot be ignored. She is right to underline the influence of Russia and its wish for people to be placed where they can have influence on its behalf, and I share her concern.
If the UK brings its global economic strengths to partnering with Serbia and other western Balkan states, there is a potential for those countries to increase their resilience against hostile foreign interference and progress towards wider economic development through trade and diplomatic efforts. The right hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) is admired by all of us here for the leadership that he showed in the Balkans when he was in the armed forces and for his knowledge of this subject following his experiences, and I know that when he speaks later he will remind us of how awful that particular war was. But if we can move forward and assist the world’s wider economic development through the trade and diplomatic efforts that I have mentioned, let us do that. We cannot ignore the negatives, but it is always good to find solutions as a result of a positive attitude and a focus on our strategy.
The UK’s objectives for the western Balkans include overcoming divisive ethnic nationalism and conflict. The attack by Serbian nationalist militants in Kosovo last year is a prime example of the necessity for our Government to pursue effective action to achieve that objective, especially with regard to Kosovo-Serbia relations. Perhaps, when the Minister responds to the debate, he will give us his thoughts about how those relations are proceeding, and what more we can do to bring about solutions.
In the light of the Serbian militants’ attack, we remain committed to supporting the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Kosovo, and oppose any action to undermine that. We, or rather our Government and our Minister, have been extremely strong on policies in that regard and their implementation, and I commend them for their leadership. I know that every one of us is greatly encouraged by it. However, the response to the attack from Kosovo and Serbia underscores ongoing tensions  that can only exacerbate the regional security challenges, and we ask our Government to join us in condemning such attacks.
The attack is an indicator of nationalist sentiments that have increased in recent years, threatening the stability of not only the countries involved but the entire region. The focus of the debate is on security in the western Balkans, but what happens there will affect all the surrounding areas as well, as the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton emphasised in her speech, and it is important for us to do our best in that context. However, we recognise the need for this topic to be debated in the House, because the western Balkans certainly remain vital to UK and European security. We must bear in mind that Albania, Montenegro and North Macedonia are our NATO partners. Their peoples may be culturally or ethnically different, but they are morally focused on finding a solution, and I find that encouraging. Their partnership with us is critical in maintaining stability in the wider region. The stability of the western Balkans remains fragile, and we cannot ignore that.
The four regions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland come as one, and we fight as one in the British Army, the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy, which I am greatly encouraged to see. Even colleagues on the SNP Benches will be encouraged to see those from Scotland who serve in uniform. Before it is too late, we must work alongside regional and international partners to change the situation in the western Balkans. The United Kingdom should redouble its efforts to address areas of needed reform in the western Balkans, including democracy, the rule of law and defence against foreign threats.
Thank you again, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me early in the debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton for bringing forward this issue. I thank the Minister and the Government for their leadership, and for their achievements so far. I want that work to continue, so I call on them to utilise their regional and international partnerships, which are built on mutual accountability and trust, to improve the security situation in the western Balkans. Today we add our voice to the efforts to make the necessary changes, and I look forward to the contributions from others, who will equally reinforce the importance of today’s debate.

Bob Stewart: Some present will recall that I was the British battalion commander under UN command in Bosnia in 1992 and 1993. Since then, I have given evidence in four war crimes trials. I have visited Bosnia frequently over the last 31 years, and what happens there and to the people who live there matters to me and to all those people who have served there—whether in the military, for a charity or whatever. Somehow that country grips us, and it matters to people in our country.
I was last in Sarajevo just over two weeks ago, principally to attend the remembrance service for the Ahmići massacre, which took place on 16 April 1993 and where 116 people like us were killed. Those people may well have been Muslim, but they thought like us; they just had a different religion. Like us, they wanted to bring their children up, they wanted schools and they wanted things to work. That is why Bosnia matters—we are very much akin to the people who live there.
Today, Bosnia remains a very fraught place, with tensions between the three main communities: Bosnian Serbs, Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Muslims. I could say there are tensions between the Christian community and the Muslim community, but I would like to point out that there are other people there, such as members of the Jewish community, particularly in Sarajevo. Tensions remain just below the surface, and sometimes they break through.
Bosnian society today is still like a lemonade bottle that someone has picked up and shaken. They put it down and think all is calm; they can see through it, and there are no bubbles. When they take the top off, there is an explosion—boom! Tensions in Bosnia remain ready to explode. These tensions are, of course, exacerbated by Russian support for Republika Srpska, which Russia already treats as an independent state. Recently, at a conference in St Petersburg, it was treated as a sovereign entity with its own flag. There have been strong indications, and maybe more than that, over the last few years that Russian weapons are going to Republika Srpska. With Russian encouragement, Dodik, Republika Srpska’s leader, whom my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) has already mentioned, is blocking all moves by the Muslim-Croat Federation and Republika Srpska—those two entities together are the country of Bosnia and Herzegovina—towards EU membership.
Just last week, Dodik stated that things will change after 2 May, which is today. Many people interpret that to mean that he will push for the secession of Republika Srpska from the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. If that were to happen, such a change would be a disaster for the western Balkans and would very likely result in yet another civil war. Our excellent ambassador to Sarajevo, Julian Reilly, is really worried about that.
Equally, our ambassador is terribly concerned about the number of qualified young people who are leaving Bosnia. Youth unemployment in Bosnia is at nearly 40%. No other country in Europe has such an appalling statistic. Bosnia is bleeding its youth, and the youth are the future of any country. The reason for that statistic is mainly the political situation and the unstable base on which the country sits.

Alicia Kearns: Is my right hon. Friend concerned that there is going to be an Easter Assembly, where Dodik and Vučić plan to sign a declaration around Greater Serbia? What does he think that means? What message does it send about Vučić’s plans and support for the tacit secession of Republika Srpska?

Bob Stewart: I thank my good and hon. Friend for saying that. I totally agree with the implication. The real problem is that Russia is encouraging this to happen. Republika Srpska, under Dodik, is pushing for it, and the Serbs will play both sides. If it were to happen, we could have an appalling situation like we had in the early 1990s.
In fairness, the British are doing all we can to help, particularly economically. We are trying to pump-prime Bosnia’s industry to support the setting up of new companies. Bosnia is still governed by the short-term rules—they were meant to be short-term rules—agreed at the Dayton peace conference in 1996. The rules were supposed to last a couple of years at most, but they have never been replaced. They really need to be sorted out to make a workable system for everyone who lives in Bosnia—Serbs, Muslims, Croats, whoever.

Alec Shelbrooke: Everyone is grateful for the service that my right hon. Friend gave to the world. He experienced and witnessed trauma to try to bring about that peace and, in doing so, had to deal with many areas of corruption. Does he believe that a drift away from the big stick has allowed the undermining of the very issues that he says need to be addressed?

Bob Stewart: I thank my right hon. Friend.
There has been drift. We had the most wonderful high representative Paddy Ashdown, who really did wield the big stick—and it worked. His name is still revered and he was a friend of mine—he remains one, although he is gone. We need a high representative with more power, and we need the situation to be sorted out so that people do not get away with criminal acts. The mafia are still rampant. When I was in Bosnia, I had to deal with three sides militarily and with the mafia, who were appalling. I do not want to go into how to deal with the mafia, because that is not the purpose of this debate, but they are always there and they are the people who do not want change. [Interruption.] I have slightly lost my place; I knew I should not have written my speech!
Corruption and cronyism remain and are largely supported by the system. Last year, when I visited Tuzla, in the north of Bosnia, I met a highly qualified young lady who was desperate to go to medical school and become a doctor. She had all the qualifications but she told me that she could not go because she was not a member of a certain political party and, more importantly, because she did not have enough money to bribe the officials to put her on a list to go to a medical school. She was in despair and felt that the only future for her and her friends lay in leaving the country.
Our country has put a lot of effort into supporting peace and stability in Bosnia. We have done so on many levels: politically; socially; economically—a lot of economic work has gone on in Bosnia; and of course militarily. I really believe that our efforts have been worth it; we have saved many lives, and nothing is more important than to save someone’s life. We have to continue to do that. We have to do all we can to help the Muslim, Serb and Croat people of Bosnia. All that the vast majority of them want is a decent life—one that we are lucky enough to have—where their children go to school, where they can get jobs and where they do not need to worry too much about law and order. We are lucky to live in this country; there but for the grace of God go all of us. We could have been born Bosnian.

Richard Foord: It is a genuine honour to follow the right hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). He is revered in this place for his knowledge of the western Balkans, not only because he reads a lot about the area and visits Bosnia a lot, but because of his rich experience from the 1990s, when it was at its most bloody.
I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns). I say humbly, as the newest Member present in the Chamber today, that a Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee ought not just to comment on some of the things going on in the world today, but anticipate what we might see in the future. We often come to the House to ask urgent questions about events,  in the middle east or elsewhere, that are happening right now, but real statespeople look forward and think about what might happen in the future and how we can head that off.
I thank those Members who paid tribute to the late Lord Stunell. We were very shocked and saddened by his loss. It reminds us of another loss in the other place, that of Lord Ashdown. When I was trying to decide whether to speak in this debate or to go out and campaign in the local elections, I had to think, “What would Lord Ashdown be more appalled by? Would he be more appalled by my absence from campaigning or the debate?” Although it was a finely balanced decision, I think he would have wanted somebody on the Liberal Democrat Benches talking about the western Balkans.
I will concentrate my remarks on Kosovo, not just because of my personal experience—I spent a year there, all told—but because Kosovo has the most recently changed international border in the region. In 2008, many members of the international community, including the UK, recognised the state of Kosovo. One has to pay tribute where it is due, and it was good to see that Lord Cameron visited Pristina not long after he was appointed, at the beginning of January this year, when many others were sleeping off a hangover.
My first trip to Kosovo was working with KFOR on trying to encourage Serb returns to Kosovo. That reminds us that the efforts by the international community to build peace in Kosovo were grounded in trying to establish a safe and secure multi-ethnic environment. It is easy to forget just how much effort the international community put into trying to keep Kosovo a very diverse place. While I was working on Serb returns, I met a lady whose husband and children had been dreadfully butchered—hung from a tree and disembowelled. I later went back and worked with the Kosovo Protection Corps, an organisation that had grown out of the former Kosovo Liberation Army and subsequently became the Kosovo Security Force. For many, that was going to be the future Army of Kosovo. I have, therefore, had the privilege of seeing things from two extreme sides and I feel I am able to see things from two very different perspectives.
While there is still a strong sense of grievance in the Kosovo-Serb community, there is no doubt that Moscow is playing on that. Moscow would love to see Belgrade acting as some sort of satellite, or even a proxy. We have pretty good reason to believe that Moscow is delighted to see the middle east burning right now because it serves to distract from its illegal war in Ukraine. In much the same way, we suppose that Moscow would be very pleased if the Balkans were on fire too.

Alicia Kearns: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words earlier in his speech. Is he aware that when the Foreign Secretary was giving evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee he described Serbia as a proxy of the Russian state?

Richard Foord: I was not aware of that but it sounds feasible. We should try to bring Serbia away from the mantle of Moscow, if we can. I appreciate that is not entirely within our gift. One way to do that is through economic means, by trying to attract Belgrade and Serbia to our cause.
We must think, too, about the Kosovo Serbs. More than 10% of Kosovo Serbs have left Kosovo in the past year. Clearly, they are electing to leave, unlike what we saw in 1998-99 when people were being burned out of their homes. It was ethnic cleansing on a scale that, thankfully, we have not seen in southern Europe since. My fear is that, by legitimising the election that the Kosovo Serbs chose to boycott, we might inflame or enrage that sense of grievance that exists among those Kosovo Serbs.
Thinking about the intervention from the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I was intrigued to see that members of the International Relations and Defence Committee in the other place wrote a letter to Lord Cameron earlier this year, and among the list of suggestions that they made was one promoting a BBC Albanian service, which strikes me as an excellent idea as it would encourage the spread of our soft power in Kosovo.
When we hear remarks about Greater Serbia, we have to pay tribute to how the international community deliberately avoided creating a Greater Albania in the wake of the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. It deliberately avoided any sense that the international community was seeking to annex territory. That stands in stark contrast to what Russia has sought to do in Ukraine. It may claim that there are precedents for redrawing international borders, but it cannot point to Kosovo as any sort of precedent, given that that involved the creation of an independent state, and that what we see in Ukraine at this time is nothing but aggression and imperial annexation.
I accept the premise that Russia is keen to interfere in the western Balkans, and is seeking to stoke tension between Serbia and Kosovo. My feeling is that we must try to avoid the Serbs becoming susceptible to the goading that is coming from Moscow.
The proposal from the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee for a trilateral security alliance is an interesting idea. What we saw in the wake of the invasion of Ukraine was Pristina appealing to its allies—appealing to the United States and to NATO to admit Kosovo into NATO. In the absence of that, I suppose that deterrence through a strong alliance with Kosovo makes a whole lot of sense, and, of course, we have seen similar proposals in relation to Warsaw and Kyiv.
Yes, deterrence is required, but my closing point is that we should not afford Moscow greater opportunities to appeal to the Serbs. There are some well-educated and well-informed Serbs who have grievances about what went on in the early 2000s. We must try to appeal to both the Kosovo Albanian community and to the Kosovo Serbs and try to create that much sought after multi-ethnic state.

Alec Shelbrooke: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, for securing this debate at such a critical time.
In November, I was in Sarajevo with the NATO Parliamentary Assembly for a Rose-Roth seminar, which involved a series of lectures and presentations. We got to hear about what was going on from many angles, which led me to the conclusion that I could make one statement saying one thing and another saying the complete opposite. There is a paradox in the country, and the truth of it all depends on one’s perspective. For example, people will say that basically nothing has  happened since 2017, and that the country is in a stalemate and is not moving forward in many of the areas my right hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) mentioned. In the same breath, they say that the country is moving forward, building more solid foundations, and becoming a more trusted partner of international institutions. Where the truth lies between those statements is what we are exploring in today’s debate, but we know that corruption is still rife, and there are too many self-serving interests.
In the interests of time, I will not repeat the examples given by my right hon. Friend. He outlined them perfectly, especially the example of the young girl who wanted to start a medical career. The reality is that if someone is not a member of a political party, or cannot pay certain people, they can be caught in a trap. Corruption, electoral fraud, the state of law—these are all things that the Government are trying to work on in Bosnia with the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, but they are not taking major steps forward. There are, however, politicians and parties that are trying to break away from the established corrupt institutions. We will watch the elections with interest over the coming years, especially in Sarajevo, as anti-corruption candidates start to stand. We have a responsibility to support those processes, through organisations that we support, such as the OSCE.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: brain drain is a massive issue for Bosnia. A country cannot survive and have an economic future if what remains is just the retired population, and those who would serve its best interests are leaving. In 2021, 182,000 people out of a population of 3.2 million left. Ten years ago, there were 300 vacancies in the military, which 7,000 people applied for. Last year, there were 300 applications for 1,000 vacancies. That is a stark change in a decade. Military investment in Bosnia and Herzegovina has stalled at 1% for a decade. That is not enough to maintain the equipment, let alone a force. We then start to see those with corrupt and criminal interests able to get a foothold again—and, more fundamentally, not being worried about any consequences.
There is a way that we can turn that around and support Bosnia. It is about, in words that I have used already, the big stick. My right hon. Friend described Paddy Ashdown using that big stick. I think my right hon. Friend was a little shy about his role in the country, doing what he could to keep criminality under control. The blunt truth is that too many politicians are playing a very dangerous game in Bosnia, in Republika Srpska and the surrounding area. When it looks as if democracy will threaten their position, they launch into nationalist fervour and push that forward. That is exactly what Dodik did in Republika Srpska: he moved to a relatively moderate position, until it looked as though his position was under threat, and then became far more extreme.
It is easy in such a debate to discuss where we are and where things are going. We say that what we did in the war was 30 years ago. I think that sanitises things slightly. I remember watching—it has to be 25 years ago—the BBC drama “Warriors”. I only watched it once, and I was traumatised by it. It was an excellent drama.

Bob Stewart: “Warriors” was based on my infantry battalion, and it demonstrated how brilliant, well trained and decent our servicemen are in such situations. I am very proud that “Warriors” won the Montreux golden rose for its production.

Alec Shelbrooke: I am more than grateful to my right hon. and gallant Friend for making that point. He is held in high esteem in this House, in Parliament and in the outside world for the role that he played in that operation.
I was coming on to say that the reason why I have never been able to watch that programme again is that it was horrific. I was not in the services, and I did not go out to Bosnia. I watched that drama in my very early 20s, and I found it so horrific that even though it has been repeated since, and even though it is excellent, I have not been able to watch it. That must not be forgotten. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) outlined some of the horrific scenes that took place—the butchery, the savagery, the hatred that led decent people and neighbours to carry out those acts. We have to recognise them in this House and never forget.
I had the privilege of being the international chairman of the Conservative party for a period. We did a lot of work with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, a body through which Labour, Liberals and Conservatives work with their sister parties to help build democracies. It was set up after the Cold War. I am proud that I was able to work with three factions from the centre right in Bosnia, to get those right-wing parties around the table, talking and working towards developing a better future. I used to say, “I don’t know whether this will have any long-term effect, but at least I can one day look my maker in the eye and say that I tried.” I had a very tiny part in trying to make peace last, because that is what we have to do.
Tragically, in my opinion, Republika Srpska representatives did not turn up to the Rose-Roth seminar of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in November, apart from one person who very bravely did and got a hell of a lot of pushback for it. Its representatives have been disengaging. That is what I mean when I talk about the dangerous path that they are on. Take the history of the second world war. By about the 1960s, German society started to teach about the holocaust. That was a very important moment; it turned to education to make sure that history could not repeat itself. In Bosnia, however, not only are people not talking about some of the crimes against humanity that took place during the war, but in some of the schools in Republika Srpska, they are actually saying, “It’s lies—it didn’t happen. This the problem. We’ve got to separate out.” We should be highly concerned about that.
What lies behind all that is the arm of Russia. I have heard that Russia is not directly involved. It is not supplying arms; it is not doing some of the things that it has done in other parts of the world, such as Syria and Ukraine. However, the hand of Russia is there, politically and disruptively, and we do not have to look very far to see it. This is a critical moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton and my right hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham used the word “deterrent”. One thing we could do today is take a British battalion, in a NATO-led operation, to those areas, and act as a deterrent. I do not want any forces to have to try to stop the slaughter of innocent civilians. We now have an opportunity, in that the Minister is here to take these points back to the Foreign Office. I know that Ministers are always constrained in what they can and cannot say at the Dispatch Box, but we have to send a clear message in this debate.
History does not have to repeat itself. We do not have to have programmes that I have only ever been able to watch once in my life because I found them too horrific for me, let alone for the many Members of this House who served in Bosnia, or those now in the other place who were Ministers at the time, and had to deal with the consequences. There is ongoing trauma. I have met service personnel, some of whom served under my right hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham, and I have heard and seen the deep distress that they live with to this day, having tried to protect innocent civilians. That does not have to happen again. We can, and we need to, take action this day. That is the responsibility of the developed western world. It has responsibility for managing its military, and for the ethics that we apply to stop those who, purely as part of power-grabbing political games, play the nationalistic card, which will lead to murdered civilians. We see that today in Ukraine because we did nothing after Crimea.

Bob Stewart: If we deployed a British battalion in Bosnia under the very small NATO headquarters there, it would show that we meant real business, and aimed to stop things this time. It would, by its presence, demonstrate power, but hopefully it would not have to use force. Battalions from other countries could help, too. My goodness, Minister, this is a time when taking a little action would have a huge dividend.

Alec Shelbrooke: I am bringing my comments to a close, and my right hon. Friend has absolutely summarised the point that I am trying to make. I am on the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, I am the chairman of its Defence and Security Committee and I lead the UK delegation. What do we talk about more than anything else? The word “deterrent.” Deterrence has to be better than going in to try stopping a war. We can do this today. My right hon. Friend’s intervention has absolutely summed it up. Minister, if there is one message to take away at the conclusion of the debate, it is that we can prevent horror that could happen very soon—maybe as soon as the end of this week.

Fiona Bruce: As the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, I had the privilege of visiting Kosovo in February, having been encouraged to do so by the Foreign Secretary, Lord Cameron. I went to discussions on freedom of religion or belief with Government Ministers, civil society and faith leaders to explore the relationships between different faith groups and to gather best practice on freedom of religion or belief in Kosovo. I had the very pleasurable experience of joining the Kosovo Government’s celebrations of the 16th anniversary of Kosovo’s declaration of independence. Above all, the main aim of my visit was to reaffirm the UK’s commitment to strengthening its relationship with Kosovo.
I have visited many countries in my 14 years as a Member of Parliament, and I can honestly say that I cannot recall a warmer welcome than the one I had from everyone I met in Kosovo, from the President and Prime Minister to Government officials and civil society. Indeed, that warm friendship was started in my first meeting, before I had even left the UK.

Alicia Kearns: My hon. Friend gives us the opportunity to reflect on the fact that none of us wants to be stood here talking about conflict in the Balkans, or just about security. In fact, when I was elected to this place, I said that I would talk about the future for those countries. I thank her for reflecting on the fact that those countries are full of people who want brightness and future, and who are full of joy and hope for their country. I thank her for bringing that moment of reflection, which was missing from our debate. That is what we want to focus on: prosperity, future, hope and co-existence.

Fiona Bruce: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. On that national day of celebration, I had the experience of listening in the Parliament of Kosovo to reflections by leader after leader about the progress their country has made in democracy, in governance and in other ways over the past 16 years. The pride that they showed was heartwarming. I will give one small example, but a very real one: one of those leaders spoke about how good it is that now, when a young child sees a policeman or a man in uniform in the streets in Kosovo, they do not run away in fear. It was a privilege to be there.
My first encounter with someone from Kosovo was with Kosovo’s ambassador to the UK, Ilir Kapiti—I am pleased to see that he is watching from the Gallery. From the first moment I met him, he extended the hand of friendship. He helped facilitate the visit, which I know was also enjoyed by my colleague and hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), who is the UK trade envoy to the region. My hon. Friend has now visited Kosovo seven times, and I was very impressed to find that he is on first-name terms with the Prime Minister, who greeted him as Martin. That shows the importance of the relationship that Kosovo has with the UK. It was my pleasure to emphasise how much we want to reciprocate, because Kosovo is an important country in the region. It is an important bulwark of stability against malign influences, and I very much wanted to convey the message that the UK wants to work with Kosovo to strengthen stability in the region, and to do all we can to assist that country in doing so.
When I went to Kosovo, not only were all my meetings convivial and productive, exhibiting a deep and enduring affection for the UK, it was clear to me that Kosovo and its people display great respect for differences in religion or belief, despite—or perhaps because of—the region’s tumultuous history. The purpose of my visit was to encourage a celebration of Kosovo’s religious diversity and the lessons we can learn from its people’s experiences to ensure the promotion of freedom of religion or belief in a multi-ethnic society.
I also put on record my appreciation for Kosovo’s contribution over the past three-plus years to the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance, a network of 43 like-minded countries determined to promote freedom of religion or belief around the world and to call out its abuses. We are a very active alliance, and I am proud to serve as its vice-chair; from 2022 to 2023, I was its chair, but our Czech Republic ambassador Robert Řehák is now the very active chair. I commend Kosovo for its engagement: the alliance has 43 member countries, but some are much more active than others, and Kosovo is one of those. It has signed a number of our statements, demonstrating its commitment to religious diversity—for example, on discrimination against the  Baha’i community across the world, on the contribution of the Jewish faith and combating antisemitism, on Christians more recently, and on the international day for commemorating the victims of acts of violence based on religion and belief. Those are just a few of the statements that Kosovo has signed.
I also commend Arton Krasniqi, Kosovo’s envoy to the alliance—and therefore my counterpart—for his personal commitment. There are some representatives in our alliance who one can tell have a genuine and heartfelt commitment for the work of promoting freedom of religion or belief around the world, and Arton is one of them. He makes sure that, whenever he can, he joins our meetings internationally. This year alone he has met us in Washington and Geneva, and just before the end of last year he met us in Prague. His personal commitment to the work of our alliance demonstrates his meaningful engagement and also that of his country.
It was with great pleasure that I met Liza Gashi, the Deputy Foreign Minister, among others from the Government in Kosovo while I was there. She immediately wanted to emphasise to me the importance in which Kosovo holds strengthening relationships between different faiths and of religious diversity. She said she wanted to hold in Kosovo, organised by the Government, a conference on freedom of religion or belief. I was delighted to hear that, because these gatherings really are important. Very shortly after my visit, her determination was followed up with a memorandum, written by one of her staff, detailing proposals for a Kosovo religious freedom forum this year, 2024.
The memorandum states:
“The Kosovo Religious Freedom Forum seeks to address pressing issues surrounding religious freedom, tolerance, and coexistence in the region. Hosted in the Republic of Kosova, this forum will bring together renowned religious leaders, policymakers, scholars…to foster dialogue, understanding, and cooperation among various religious communities… the conference aims to highlight the importance of religious freedom as a fundamental human right and a conduit for peace and how countries can work together to address the challenges facing religious freedom today.”
It also states that the conference would very much bring to bear the
“lessons learned from Kosovo’s rich history of religious tolerance”.
I look forward to the discussions about that gathering progressing between Minister Gashi and the chair of our alliance, Ambassador Řehák.
During my visit, I was also very pleased to meet Hajrulla Çeku, the Minister of Culture, Youth and Sport. He similarly emphasised to me the importance he attached to Kosovo being an increasingly multi-ethnic state and society. I was delighted to hear that he is working hard to plan the hosting of the Mediterranean games in Kosovo in 2030. I was equally delighted to hear him extend his hand towards a meeting with Bishop Teodosije of the Serbian Orthodox Church, indicating how willing he was to meet him in whatever forum the bishop would like. I was equally pleased that the bishop, when I met him, gave a clear indication of his willingness to reciprocate in that regard. It was a very important moment, and I know that our new ambassador in Pristina, Jonathan Hargreaves, will do all he can to promote that relationship.
I welcome the Government of Kosovo’s approach to religious freedom. It was excellent to hear, shortly after my visit, that the Government of Kosovo had implemented the 2016 constitutional court decision, which confirmed  the Decani monastery’s ownership of several hectares of land. That was a practical demonstration of their commitment to religious pluralism, and the securing of that was something I sought while there—although I of course claim no credit for the fact that it happened.
We cannot take for granted the continued security of the region, and we must continue to address legacies of the past, while also working for a more prosperous and secure future. I believe that religious freedom and the work that Kosovo is determined to undertake have a vital role to play. Our ambassador, Jonathan Hargreaves —he has recently returned after beginning his tenure there—is particularly determined to do all he can to make progress on dialogue with Serbian representatives, and to help promote, facilitate and follow up on a joint meeting of the independent monitoring committee, and the dialogue that we hope will ensue.
Kosovo may not be a large country, but it has an important role to play in the Balkans. It is important not only for that region, but for the wider stability of the world, as we work in an increasingly unstable world. The UK recognises the importance of working together to secure that, and in my role as the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, I look forward to playing my part and, I hope, returning to Kosovo soon to play my role in the conference, which I hope will take place later this year.

Eleanor Laing: I call the SNP spokesman.

Patrick Grady: I congratulate the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) on securing this incredibly valuable debate, and on her commitment to ensuring stability and security in the western Balkans, not just in her time in this place but throughout her professional career. The other incredibly valuable contributions we have heard all speak to Members’ own personal expertise and experience, and demonstrate why the Backbench Business Committee was right to grant time in the Chamber for this important debate. Many of my hon. Friends have worked closely with the hon. Lady and the Foreign Affairs Committee, and in some of the parliamentary assemblies that were mentioned, on these issues over the years.
The security and stability of the western Balkans affects the security and stability of the wider region, especially here in Europe. As we have heard, conflicts and disputes in the different countries often act as proxies or plays for influence by other actors on the global stage. Sadly, much of that is not new. Anyone who has studied basic high-school history will know that the roots of the first world war are often traced to the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand on the streets of Sarajevo in June 1914, just short of 110 years ago. For the many reasons we have discussed, the region continues to this day to be seen as something of a tinderbox or powder keg, or even a shaken but unopened bottle of fizzy lemonade.
Much progress was made, especially with the establishment of the Dayton accords in 1995, but those structures have not been without challenge or strain over the years, and there are increasing challenges to the status quo, as we have heard throughout the debate. The increasingly assertive stance of Milorad Dodik within Republika Srpska threatens the territorial integrity of  Bosnia and Herzegovina, as the motion suggests, and tensions remain high between Serbia and Kosovo after cross-border violence. The Ohrid agreement between those countries is welcome, but it must be followed up with practical action.
The roots of the instability, and political instability in particular, run deep. That in turn has significant consequences across the region, including ubiquitous corruption, inter-ethnic tension, strong organised crime, autocratic tendencies and limited human rights. The powerful speeches about freedom of religion or belief are testament to that. Organised crime in particular remains a challenge, and drug and weapons trafficking, illegal immigration, money laundering, contraband or terrorist acts all add to the sense of instability and insecurity. These factors explain and sometimes compound the opportunities for external influence and exploitation by bad faith actors.
The hon. Lady’s motion refers to Russia, and the SNP joins her in her condemnation of Russian attempts to amplify tensions in the region for its own gain. Putin clearly sees the western Balkans as central to his arguments for the return of multipolarity in world affairs, in opposition to what he sees as a US-dominated unipolar order. For example, by blocking UN recognition of Kosovo’s independence, Moscow tries to position itself as a defender of Serbian territorial integrity, which boosts Russia’s popularity among Serbs and puts pressure on Belgrade to maintain friendly relations with Moscow. As we have heard repeatedly in the debate, Russia continues to back Bosnian Serb antagonists both officially through Republika Srpska and informally through myriad cultural, religious, educational and paramilitary groups.
At the same time, Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 has seen the western Balkan countries emerge essentially as a new frontline in Russia’s geopolitical confrontation with the west. Russia has used the media and information sphere, stepped up its political influence and mobilised proxy organisations to project its narratives, protect its interests and slow the region’s integration into western institutions. However, integration continues to provide something of a counterbalance. Progress continues to be made towards that integration, in particular the prospect of accession to the European Union and, perhaps for some countries, eventually to NATO. Those are the institutions that have promoted peace, security and economic development among their member countries and international partners for decades, since the end of the second world war.
Countries that wish to join the EU should largely be supported and encouraged to do so, and at least to start making progress towards the different membership criteria that would allow them to pursue membership in future. That has not necessarily been the case for the UK Government’s attitude towards the European Union. There is some irony in promoting and encouraging expansion in one direction, while dealing with the consequences of Brexit in the other.

Alicia Kearns: I think that is a deeply cynical and unfair point to make. The people of Bosnia and Kosovo want to join the EU, and therefore it is right we support them in their ambitions. We are not saying we think they should join because we think it is right; we are saying that, if that is what they want—if that is their  determination—we will support them in that journey because it is right for them. The hon. Gentleman’s point is deeply unfair. If I am honest, it brings domestic politics into a debate that so far has rightly focused on the Balkans and their people, rather than lowering down to domestic politics. It is disappointing to make that point today.

Patrick Grady: I take the hon. Lady’s point, and I am not trying to upset much of the consensus we have heard today, but there have been consequences. A message was sent by the United Kingdom when it decided that the European Union was not for it. Many of us during that debate—we do not need to rehearse it just now—warned that that was a potential consequence of the UK’s decision to leave. I will not go any further on that, and I want to agree with the points that have been made.
There is an important role for the UK to continue to play, as the hon. Lady’s motion notes, particularly by increasing engagement with international allies and regional partners. Indeed, the counterpart to her Committee in the House of Lords made a number of important recommendations in a recent letter to the Foreign Secretary, all of which the SNP would welcome being taken forward.
Those recommendations include: actions by the leaderships of Serbia and Kosovo to implement the Brussels and Ohrid agreements; supporting the high representative in efforts to tackle secessionist activity by Republika Srpska; re-evaluating the possibility of rejoining Operation Althea, the EU-led peacekeeping mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina; the provision of funding for a BBC Albanian service; the use of longer-term funding instruments to support development in the region; more activity to promote economic growth and combat corruption; continued participation in the Quint; and continued collaboration with EU and US partners on development, security, reform and democratisation.
I agree with the points that the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) made about the value of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy in that regard, speaking as someone with some experience of that.

Richard Foord: The hon. Member referred to Operation Althea, a European Union-led operation that the UK chose to leave on leaving the European Union; we left in 2020. Does he think that the UK would be wise to go back into that operation, as it can, as an associated state, or should there be a parallel security arrangement of the sort suggested by the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee?

Patrick Grady: The recommendation of the House of Lords Committee was that the United Kingdom should re-evaluate the possibility of rejoining the operation, so that is the kind of direction in which there should be travel. It is about identifying the most important and appropriate role that the United Kingdom can play. Whatever form that takes, these are practical and achievable steps that the Government could take to demonstrate their willingness to be a good global actor.
A secure and stable, peaceful and prosperous region is not just in the interests of the people who live in the countries that make up the western Balkans—we heard powerful testimony about how people want to get on with their everyday lives—but in the interests of all of us who want to live in a peaceful and prosperous world.

Alec Shelbrooke: Will the hon. Member give way?

Patrick Grady: I have just concluded my speech.

Eleanor Laing: I call the shadow Minister.

Stephen Doughty: I thank the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), for securing the debate and all hon. and right hon. Members for their insightful and considered contributions. I recognise in particular the speeches by my friend the right hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) and the hon. and gallant Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord), who have direct experience of both Bosnia and Kosovo and the region more widely. There were also excellent contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) and, of course, the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), and the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) on behalf of the SNP.
I draw attention to my declarations in relation to my role as a shadow Minister and visits to the region. I, too, welcome the presence today of the two ambassadors from Kosovo and Bosnia. It is always a pleasure to meet and work with them.
We heard poignant tributes to the late Lord Ashdown and the late Lord Stunell, to which I add my remarks. I also pay tribute to my former colleague Tony Lloyd, who is deeply missed in this place. He played a key role on the western Balkans in the last Labour Government and continued to take a keen interest in the security and stability of the region.
We are all too aware of the crises we currently see in the middle east and Africa and, of course, the terrible war in Ukraine, but we must not lose sight of the strategic importance of other key regions, and indeed our historic diplomatic, military and other obligations to them. Of course, the western Balkans is one such region. I am pleased that, despite the many political differences in this place, the debate has underscored that there is cross-party support and concern for maintaining the values of democracy, security and stability in the region, a commitment to the prevention of conflict and atrocities, and the defence of fundamental human rights.
As a Parliament, and indeed as a country, we must recognise the continuing tensions across the region and—this warning has been made many times in the debate—their capacity to destabilise the countries and peoples in the region, with potentially dire consequences not only for the peoples of the region but for European security more widely. The destabilising role that Russia is playing has been rightly recognised and referenced many times.

Alec Shelbrooke: The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) also made that point. He was about to sit down so sadly I could not intervene on him. The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) is absolutely right about the consequences for the rest of Europe. Dodik is not just talking about Republika Srpska as it stands; he is talking about a  greater Republika Srpska, with parts of Serbia, parts of Kosovo, and parts of Montenegro, which is a NATO ally. With Russia’s help to cause disruption—in history, that has happened in similar ways—all of us could easily be dragged into a war if we allow this nationalistic fervour to take the route that he is preaching.

Stephen Doughty: The right hon. Member is absolutely right to highlight some of the deeply irresponsible rhetoric we have heard in recent weeks as well as over longer periods. We all know the risks posed by that from the historical conflicts we have seen in the region. The concerns raised are indeed shared by NATO as well as by our colleagues in the EU, the United States and others. I emphasise that the region is a priority for me and our shadow foreign affairs team, as it would be for any future Labour Government. Indeed, over the past two years, I have personally met diplomatic, parliamentary and governmental representatives from every country in the region as well as our excellent envoy, Lord Peach. I pay tribute to our excellent ambassadors in the region, and our Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office teams for all their work. Just last week, I met colleagues from Albania, the Bosnian ambassador, delegations from Kosovo and other envoys across the region. As has been referenced, it is crucial that we work together with key allies and partners.
The horrors of the 1990s are ingrained in the minds of many people across this country and the House, including armed forces personnel from my own family. I have powerful memories of visits, particularly to Bosnia with the right hon. Member for Beckenham, and to Kosovo. We all know the terrible consequences that can happen if ethnic hatreds are allowed to devolve into identity-based violence. I think of the young man my own age whom I met, Nedžad Avdić, a survivor of Srebrenica, and the horrors that he went through. I was a young lad enjoying a beach holiday in south Wales while his family and others were slaughtered around him. Those examples will never leave my mind.
No dynamic underscores the need for our collective engagement more than the enduring challenges in the relationship between Kosovo and Serbia. The Opposition remain strong supporters, along with the Government, of Kosovo’s independence, sovereignty and security. Earlier this month, it was disappointing to see many in northern Kosovo boycott the local referendum. Only 100 out of 46,000 registered voters cast ballots in the predominantly Serb municipalities. That comes despite the Government in Pristina agreeing to annul last year’s local elections and hold new ones.
I have had the pleasure of visiting Kosovo, as I mentioned, and meeting members of all communities. It is clear that there can be a positive future for Kosovo, involving Kosovan Albanians, Serbs and other minorities. It was pleasing to see the Kosovan delegation recently visiting Northern Ireland and learning from our examples of different communities coming together and living in peace despite their differences, finding ways forward and political solutions. We should all want to support those efforts.
We are proud of our historic actions in relation to Kosovo, but it is crucial that we play our part now. I pay tribute to the UK forces who have gone in to reinforce the existing UK forces in KFOR, particularly after the incidents that have been referred to in Banjska and  elsewhere. It is crucial that those responsible for destabilising are held to account and brought to justice. We must work closely with all colleagues to ensure that those tensions do not develop in any further devastating direction.
It is also crucial that we support the decisions of people in the region and note the decision of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to approve its recommendation for Kosovo to become its 47th member state. It is crucial that any tensions are not escalated. Kosovans must be free to determine their own paths.
I welcome the UK Government’s recent statements on this matter. I hope the Minister can outline what recent discussions he has had with EU counterparts, the United States and others about the ongoing tensions, how we can work to prevent further destabilisation and how we can ensure that contribution to KFOR continues. Where does he see the diplomatic dialogue going to normalise relations between Belgrade and Pristina?
Reference has been made to the internal dynamics within Serbia. I have heard from many figures across the Serbian political spectrum. It is very important that we support democracy, inclusion and stability within Serbia, and that people are allowed to take part in political processes there. I also recognise that there are tensions in a number of other countries, which we do not have time to go into today. The situation in Montenegro and North Macedonia—both key NATO allies—has been particularly fragile over recent years. I had the pleasure of visiting Skopje and meeting political figures across the spectrum. What are we doing to ensure that those countries continue on a path of democracy, stability and the rule of law?
We have had extensive discussions today about the situation in Bosnia. As I said, I met the ambassador recently. We have all joined today in raising concerns about the rhetoric of Milorad Dodik and others. We have joined the Government in supporting sanctions against those who seek to undermine Dayton. When it comes to recognition of the past atrocities and otherwise, it is about identifying those responsible, not going against a people or a whole community, as the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee pointed out. We have also seen concerning steps in Republika Srpska towards a so-called foreign agents Act, mirroring developments elsewhere and again removing democratic transparency and the ability of human rights organisations to hold Governments to account. It is a hugely worrying step, and I would appreciate the Minister’s comments on that.
Finally, it has been a pleasure to meet colleagues from Albania, another key NATO partner, in recent weeks. It is good to see increased co-operation with Albania on migration and trade. The British Council is playing a crucial role, particularly on the future for young Albanians, which was rightly raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough. I hope the Minister can say a little bit about the positive steps being taken in our bilateral relationship with Albania.
The United Kingdom has crucially important relationships across the region. We must strive to play a positive and engaged role through our ambassadorial teams and through international forums. Crucial elections are taking place in the region over the coming weeks. We must ensure that security and stability in the western  Balkans remain a priority, particularly given the warnings in relation to Kosovo and Bosnia. I hope the Minister will say what steps will be taken at the upcoming European Political Community summit, which we will be hosting in July, not only to bring together parties but to promote peace and stability in this crucial region.

David Rutley: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) on securing this timely and very important debate. I pay tribute to her for her work as Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, along with her tireless and very active efforts to secure a more stable, peaceful and prosperous future for the people of the western Balkans. The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani), the Minister for Europe, would have been delighted to take part in the debate. She is currently travelling on ministerial duties, so it is my pleasure to respond on behalf of the Government. I am grateful to hon. Members for their many thoughtful and emotive contributions, which help us to understand the significance of the region.
The people of the western Balkans clearly deserve the opportunity to live in stable, inclusive and democratic societies where they can heal the scars left by conflict and grasp every opportunity to thrive and prosper. That is what we are striving towards: all six countries playing their full part in the Euro-Atlantic family of nations, with the opportunities and benefits that brings. Sadly, as we have heard today, we are a long way from the peaceful and stable Balkans we all wish to see. The contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton and the hon. Members for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) and for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) highlighted the context within which we are working: democracy is fragile at best; political elites are ramping up ethno-nationalist tensions for their own benefit; and Russia, as was highlighted by Members across the House, is fanning the flames of division to distract attention from Ukraine and move the region away from the west. It is good to see the House united in calling out that behaviour.
We must, of course, avoid a return to conflict in the western Balkans at all costs. We are painfully aware of the serious consequences that that would have in the region and beyond. Meanwhile, it is clear that political weakness and instability in the western Balkans is threatening the UK’s security. Endemic corruption is fuelling illegal migration and allowing serious organised crime groups to thrive and operate in this country, including in the drugs trade.
With that in mind, we are taking a multi-faceted approach. First, we are addressing the drivers of instability, whether that be Dodik’s push for secession or heightened tensions between Serbia and Kosovo, but we are also focusing on the underlying factors enabling that. We are engaged with all six countries, taking a cross-Government approach underpinned by our programmes in the region. Last year, we spent over £47 million on supporting security and defence, preventing conflict and promoting media freedom, along with efforts to tackle corruption and organised crime, and to empower women and girls.
Given the growing instability, with all the risks it poses, we are prioritising the western Balkans in our diplomatic engagement. As others have pointed out, the fact that one of the Foreign Secretary’s first visits was to Kosovo, in January, demonstrates the importance that we place on our ties with the region. Indeed, the Prime Minister’s special envoy to the western Balkans, Lord Peach, visited the region 12 times last year and made a further 16 trips to other interested countries, as well as engaging regularly with international organisations such as NATO and the EU.
The UK has long worked with Serbia on shared priorities and will continue to do so, making clear the points on which we disagree and judging individuals by their actions. It is not for us to comment on the appointment of individual Ministers, but it clearly raises questions when we see a US-sanctioned individual in the Government.
A number of issues have been raised today about the relationship between Kosovo and Serbia. We have seen an increase in violence, including last September’s terrible attack in Banjska, which was described very clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton. In every meeting, every call and every letter that we exchange with Serbian and Kosovan leaders, we urge them to avoid inflammatory rhetoric and escalation and engage constructively in the dialogue. Only through genuine dialogue and mutual good will can we normalise relations between Kosovo and Serbia and start to build the brighter future that their citizens deserve. We also continue to make it clear to the Serbian authorities that they must co-operate fully with efforts to hold to account those responsible for the Banjska attack, take steps to tackle cross-border arms smuggling, and encourage Kosovo Serbs to return to the institutions and serve the communities that they represent. We have also made clear to the Kosovo Government the need to ensure that minority communities can play a full and equal role in the country’s future.
We are disappointed that the mayoral recall referendum on Sunday 21 April was boycotted by Kosovo Serbs. It was arranged specifically to return Kosovan municipalities to representational governance, and it is important for a route back to that to be found. I can confirm to Members, if they do not already know, that the UK will vote for Kosovo to join the Council of Europe.
Points have been raised about investigations of the Banjska attack. The Kosovan police and prosecutors are the appropriate authorities to investigate it, and it right for us to wait for that investigation to conclude. We have previously sanctioned Radoičić, the Kosovan criminal charged with organising the attack. We have urged Serbia to hold perpetrators to account and address the ongoing problem of cross-border arms smuggling.
Along with others, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) rightly spoke of the role of Lord Ashdown in Bosnia and Herzegovina, but I think we all recognise the important role performed there by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). He reminded us that that country matters, and highlighted the tensions that exist there. I will never forget visiting Sarajevo with my family. One cannot but be moved by being in that great city, meeting its people, and being reminded of the horrors of the past.
We recognise that we are facing the threat of Republika Srpska seceding from Bosnia and Herzegovina. We have condemned Dodik’s secessionist actions, and have under- lined our steadfast support for the High Representative. We are working with our international partners to deter  further attempts at destabilisation, and to support the reforms that are necessary for progress towards EU accession.

Richard Foord: The Minister has mentioned deterrence. We heard from the right hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) and the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee that what might serve deterrence better at this time would be putting a British battalion or battle group into Bosnia. Does the Minister agree with their suggestion, and would that be feasible with a regular Army of 73,000?

David Rutley: At the moment we have no plans to contribute to EUFOR or to rejoin, but we recognise that it is vital for Bosnia and Herzegovina’s security, and we work hard to support it. NATO supports the force under the Berlin-plus arrangements, and the UK continues to be a strong supporter of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s armed forces. That was underlined by the deployment of the First Battalion Royal Anglian Regiment to train alongside Bosnia-Herzegovina armed forces personnel in October and November last year.
I come back to sanctions, which are an important aspect of the situation in Bosnia. In January, we sanctioned a Bosnian media company for undermining the country’s constitution. That builds on the sanctioning in 2022 of Dodik and the then President of Republika Srpska, Željka Cvijanović, and we constantly keep our approach to sanctions under review. We will consider targeting others who continue to seek to undermine the situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Alec Shelbrooke: I am listening carefully to what my hon. Friend is saying. We must be very careful not to allow recent history to repeat itself. President Obama made it crystal clear that if chemical weapons were dropped in Syria, it would cross a red line and would not be tolerated, but nothing happened. Then Russia walked into Crimea, and nothing happened. Now we have a war in Ukraine. It is all very well saying that we will work through diplomacy and sanctions, but what I am really interested in is saving lives. I do not expect a response now, but I urge my hon. Friend to go back to the Foreign Office and say that this debate has highlighted that normal diplomatic routes are not going to be enough. We need a big stick.

David Rutley: I know my right hon. Friend’s views well, and he communicates them with alacrity and clarity. We will reflect on his remarks, but I want to underline that we are taking a comprehensive approach to a very serious problem, and it is good to see support across the House. I and the Government have heard the points that have been made.
I am getting the eagle eye of Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will accelerate through the last parts of my speech. In response to the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, we will continue to support North Macedonia’s Euro-Atlantic path. We welcome the progress that is being made in Montenegro under Prime Minister Spajić, which is geared towards boosting economic growth, bolstering the rule of law reforms and building closer ties with the country’s European neighbours.
I would also like to talk about the very important contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), who is the Prime Minister’s  special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, about the really important work that she has been doing in Kosovo. It was good to see how her work, and indeed the work of civil society and religious groups in Kosovo, is helping to celebrate the diversity of religion and belief. It is important that Kosovans are actively participating in the wider FORB agenda, because we can learn from their experience, to put it frankly.
The UK is determined to bring about a more stable, secure and prosperous future for the western Balkans, for the sake of all our people. This includes supporting the Governments of the region to build open and inclusive societies with strong democratic institutions, helping them to tackle the criminality and corruption that drives illegal migration and blights economic growth, and ensuring that women and minority communities are empowered to play a vital role in society.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton on securing this debate, and on her huge contribution to it and to the action that is being taken. It is important to focus on this important region, and on the steps that we need to continue to take to help underpin the stability of the people who live there.

Alicia Kearns: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for convening this debate. I thank the Minister for his response.
The future of the Balkans must be one of peaceful co-existence—it is what their people desperately want, and it is what the world needs. We also need to end the retraumatisation that is taking place through the falsification of history, and to ensure that when we see crises, we step up and act. Foreign policy is not just about reacting, although too many people think it is. It is about shaping, mitigating and supporting, and we have a duty to act, not least in the Balkans.
I will finish by saying that in the face of denial rages a truth undeniable—eyes that saw too much, and eyes that saw nothing. We must see in this place, we must speak in this place, and we must make sure that the country acts. I thank every hon. Member who took the time to contribute to this important debate, not least because the local elections will have called on all of them to be elsewhere. I really appreciate their commitment to this cause.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House recognises the acute security situation in the Western Balkans; supports the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Kosovo and Bosnia and Herzegovina; condemns the attack by Serb nationalist militants in Banjska, Kosovo on 24 September 2023; further supports the authority of the Constitutional Court in Bosnia and Herzegovina; further condemns Russian interference in the Balkans; notes with concern pro-Russian and pro-Serbian irredentist political rhetoric in Montenegro; and urges the Government to increase its engagement with regional partners and international allies to improve the security landscape of the Western Balkans.

Pension Schemes

[Relevant document: Third Report of the Work and Pensions Committee, Defined benefit pension schemes, HC144.]

Alistair Carmichael: I beg to move,
That this House has considered pension schemes.
I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing time for this debate. I last spoke about this issue in a half-hour debate in Westminster Hall on 17 January, and there have since been a number of significant developments, not least the third report of the Work and Pensions Committee, which is a good and substantial piece of work. I am delighted to see its Chair, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), in his place, and I will touch on the report towards the end of my comments.
Events have unfolded for the various pension schemes over the last few months, and what I spoke about in January as being particularly pertinent to the beneficiaries of the defined benefit schemes at BP and Shell has begun to look more like a wider course of conduct. There are significant developments under way, not least the Government’s recent consultations, which could significantly shape the way in which defined benefit pension schemes treat their beneficiaries in the future.
Although I initially thought that I was dealing with a couple of oil companies, I now see that it is a range of different companies. Yesterday I read an alarming brief from the pensioners of Hewlett-Packard. It is pretty clear that, as this area of pension policy develops, an ever larger number of large corporates will take the same path as BP and Shell. Ultimately, it will be our constituents, as beneficiaries, who lose out if we get it wrong and if these companies are allowed to do as they wish, rather than as they ought, on the position of their pensioners.

Julian Lewis: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. I have been contacted by three retired members of ExxonMobil, which has a very large refinery in my constituency. I was reluctant to name the firm because I have not had a chance to ask for its side of the story, but the three letters tell me that exactly the same thing has been happening. Those three people were given no discretionary rise this January, and it was then modestly reinstated after protests were made. There is clearly some sort of co-ordinated effort, and not in a good way, exactly as the right hon. Gentleman describes

Alistair Carmichael: It pains me to say it, but I think the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. What might have started with the oil and gas companies is clearly going much wider.
I should declare an interest, as I hope to be the beneficiary of a defined benefit pension, if I live that long, having been in the House before the move to career average earnings in 2011.
I will not rehearse what I said about the decision of BP, Shell and others not to pay a discretionary increase, which mattered significantly to their pensioners at a time when inflation was running north of 11%. However,  it is worth reminding the House that a fundamental point of fairness is at stake here. When one is past retirement age, one no longer has the choices one has when one is of working age. If someone in employment is unhappy with the money they get for the work they do, they can look around and find another job, or they may choose to retrain and do something else more profitable. Once someone is of retirement age, they no longer have that choice and flexibility, which is why it has long been established as a matter of public policy that the beneficiaries of pension schemes require protection. After all, this is simply deferred income, with our being paid later, after we have stopped working, for the service we have done. It is a fundamental aspect of that protection that it should take as its starting point the undertakings that were given.
At BP and Shell, and I do not doubt ExxonMobil, people were given vigorous encouragement to join pension schemes and invest in them. They were given undertakings at the time that one advantage of a big pension scheme at a company such as that was that they would later in life have an income that was protected against inflation. So a question of good faith is at play here.
I have no doubt that for many of the big corporates, the BPs, Shells, Hewlett-Packards and so on, the possibility of paying money to those who are no longer economically active and contributing to their business is tiresome and inconvenient. I never cease to be amazed by the extent to which those at the top of these big corporates seem to think that somehow the corporates are as big as they are simply because of the role that they have played. They do not seem to understand that they are the inheritors of businesses that were built by others, who are now among those who would be the pension beneficiaries. If one is to stand on the shoulders of others, it is always good to respect the fact that one enjoys the view one has because of the shoulders on which one stands. I am sorry to say that that seems to have been forgotten in the boardrooms of too many of our large corporates.
I have expressed these concerns about BP, in particular, before. I remind the House that I have a large number of BP pensioners in my constituency, because for many years BP operated the oil terminal at Sullom Voe. It was a good employer and we valued its presence in the community for many decades. I am concerned now to see that BP pension fund trustees with a collective 94 years of membership of the fund have been replaced with four with precious little involvement, two of whom are citizens of the United States. Since we last debated this issue, both Shell and BP have again refused any discretionary increase to their beneficiaries—in essence, they are doubling down.
The briefing I have received from the Shell Pensions Group is of particular concern. As it is crafted succinctly and concisely, I shall, with your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, read it into the record. It says:
“Shell has imposed this benefits cut upon its pensioners during a period when:
the Fund was in healthy surplus and well able to afford full cost of living increases without call upon Shell’s sponsor covenant; and
Shell, its shareholders and senior executives benefited hugely from the same energy crisis that was already causing their pensioners extremely high rises in their cost of living.”
The Shell Pensions Group has done considerable and detailed research on that point. From the actuarial reports and the scheme’s accounts, it concludes that
“during the same period, instead of a balanced approach using about 25% of the surplus (as quoted by Shell as necessary for a full cost of living increase) to the immediate benefit of the 93% of members whose pensions are currently deferred or in payment, the Trustee has largely opted to dissipate the surplus by massively accelerating completion of its Low Reliance (upon Shell) investment transition plan. This fifteen year plan was commenced in 2018, but with the acceleration opportunity provided by the surplus arising from increased bond deals, it was almost fully completed in 2022.”
That is where the money that could have funded the pension increases has gone. It has gone into accelerating a programme that was supposed to take 15 years and instead has been concluded in four years.
I am afraid to say to the Minister that the Shell Pensions Group also has strong concerns about the consultation that he launched on 24 February, under the heading “Options for Defined Benefit schemes”. It says:
“We are therefore aghast that…the Pension Minister opened a new consultation…with a view to identifying ways of encouraging and enabling sponsors of DB schemes to claw back surpluses. We feel that the foregoing demonstrates that sponsors require no assistance or encouragement in that and on the contrary, stronger measures are necessary to hold the surplus for the benefit of the beneficiaries, particularly in contributory schemes in which they have invested their own money by way of deferred salary and additional voluntary contributions.”
The Select Committee report has given careful consideration to this matter. Along with most of those to whom I speak, I am well pleased with the recommendations of the report in that regard.
BP also continues to double down. There continues to be no formal engagement with the pensioners’ group—what the previous chief executive officer called “the zero- engagement strategy”. I would have loved to have been at BP’s annual general meeting this year; by all accounts, it sounds to have been a heated affair. The analysis published recently in The Times by its financial editor ties in very well what BP is doing with the concerns we should all have about the future direction of travel. In a recent article, the financial editor wrote:
“Everyone at least pays lip service to the notion that meeting pension promises in full is paramount. No surplus should be touched without a meaty asset buffer being built up. No sponsor should be allowed to extract cash without showing a strong covenant—providing reassurance that it will still be around to pick up the pieces if things go wrong.
But even those safeguards aren’t nearly enough to fully protect members, according to a trenchantly argued submission from a ginger group of BP pension fund members, the BP Pensioners Group. Attempts by employers to evade their promises will be “legion” it says; they will “trim back or remove any benefit possible”; they will “abuse loopholes” in the rules to maximise their clawbacks. They will push hard to minimise what members should “reasonably expect”.
It also warned that the prospect of executive bonuses being fattened up by success in grabbing back surpluses will be far more potent in driving company behaviour than any residual feeling of responsibility to ensure schemes pay every last penny of promised pensions. The message is that it could all end up in an unseemly scramble.”
The article continues:
“The bitter dispute with BP is just “a foretaste” of how relations between many other DB pension fund members and their former employers are going to sour if the surplus-grabbing reforms are pushed through without proper safeguards. The old world is dead.”
That sums up very well the tension between surplus clawback and the need to honour the commitments that were given to beneficiaries. We see so often this mismatch,  which affects the ability of the citizen to take on the big corporate, or the big public body. This is just the private sector version of what happened to the sub-postmasters. The Post Office was big enough, strong enough and well enough connected simply to ignore the sub-postmasters, to lie about them, to straight-bat their concerns, and to deny what was obvious to everyone until they could no longer manage to do so.
What is the agenda here, and ultimately who will be the winners and the losers? It is pretty obvious that the pensioners will not be the winners. We should consider the reputational damage that the issue is doing to BP and Shell. Obviously, any oil and gas company these days has to be a fairly thick-skinned corporate entity, but still I ask myself why they simply refuse to engage. Why are they denying the very obvious and clear justice of the case being put forward by their own pensioners groups? I find it difficult to see any explanation other than that the funds are being fattened up before being hived off to insurance companies or others.
The Times—The Thunderer—is not the only news outlet to have reported on BP pensions recently. On 29 March 2024, the PR Newswire reported a case in Houston, Texas, in which the judge told BP that it must reform its pension plan, following an eight-year legal battle over pension losses. Again, we are dealing with big corporates, which have deep pockets and can see off the attention of the small pension beneficiaries. PR Newswire said:
“A group of Standard Oil of Ohio (Sohio) oil workers received a winning decision…after an eight-year legal battle with BP Corporation North America, Inc. (BP), in a huge victory for oil workers, with a federal judge ruling that BP”—
this is worth paying attention to—
“‘committed fraud or similarly inequitable conduct’ in how it announced a pension formula change more than 30 years ago…Federal judge George C. Hanks, Jr., ruled that BP violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974 and plaintiffs”—
that is, the workers—
“are entitled to appropriate redress by ‘equitable relief.’ The court ruled plaintiffs demonstrated BP committed multiple violations of ERISA in its communications to its employees…The Sohio retirees maintained, since 1989, BP had insisted the new formula would provide benefits as good as or better than the old formula. The judge agreed and found there is a pension shortfall for many.”
It is worth reflecting exactly what the people who took that case were motivated by: the work that they had done for BP. The article continues:
“Fritz Guenther, lead plaintiff, dedicated his work life to BP often in dangerous conditions on the North Slope of Alaska. He worked two weeks on, two weeks off for years relying on BP’s representations regarding his retirement. While he is still healthy, he says many of his colleagues face health issues, while others still have died within the past eight years. The retirees’ legal fight is taking place against a backdrop of a retirement wave nationwide, with the US Census Bureau estimating that one in five Americans will reach the age 65 or older by 2030.”
That was the nature of the commitment that BP employees in America gave to the company, and it is a measure of the moral bankruptcy that appears to be at the heart of that corporate that it could not see that payback was necessary for these people in their retirement.
I will touch briefly on the Work and Pensions Committee report to which I have repaired. I apologise for doing something that I was always told not to do as a law student: I will read from the rubric, rather than the substance of the report. I welcome what the Committee said about scheme surplus and governance. In particular, the executive summary says:
“Many schemes are much closer than they expected to being able to enter a buy-out arrangement with an insurer to secure scheme benefits.”
I touched on that earlier. The Committee was also right to talk about the various reasons why the flexibility would be advantageous to wider interests. There is a balance to be struck between the company, the beneficiary, and the national interest, in relation to the money being available for investment. That balance has to be properly struck, and it will inevitably slew towards the interests of Government and corporate interests, unless the necessary protections are put in place.
The Committee also observed:
“We note the current consultation on the level of funding a scheme would need to have for surplus extraction to be an option. However, strong governance will also be essential. We recommend that DWP should conduct an assessment of the regulatory and governance framework that would be needed to ensure member benefits are safe and take steps to mitigate the risks before proceeding.”
In this brave new world for defined benefit pensions, that is a warning that the Minister and the Government would do well to take onboard. If they do not, I am afraid that the losers at the end of the day will be our constituents, the beneficiaries of such pension schemes. We will look back in years to come, and we will see that the cases of BP, Shell, ExxonMobil, Hewlett-Packard and others are simply the canaries in the coalmine.

Eleanor Laing: I call the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee.

Stephen Timms: I welcome the debate, and congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing it at a time when a lot is happening in pensions policy. I will take advantage of its broad scope to comment on wider issues, as well as picking up on the points that he made. I agree with a great deal of what he said.
Auto-enrolment, which was devised by a Labour Government, legislated for under the coalition, and implemented under subsequent Conservative Governments, has been a huge success in increasing the number of employees saving for a pension, but a lot of challenges remain. Above all, the amounts that people are saving under auto-enrolment are not enough for an adequate retirement income, and if we do not increase pension saving soon, we will have a crisis of inadequate pension incomes before very long. The gender pension gap remains much too big. Pension saving among self-employed people, to whom auto-enrolment does not apply, has plummeted.
The Chancellor is rightly looking at how he can boost investment in the UK economy from pension funds, but UK pension funds, for understandable reasons, some of which the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland touched on, have largely withdrawn from investments in companies, as regulation has pushed them to reduce the  risks that they face. We must not force those defined benefit funds that are still open and investing to close prematurely.
The right hon. Gentleman highlighted this afternoon, as he has previously—he mentioned his debate in Westminster Hall—that members of some defined benefit pension schemes, such as those of BP and Shell, and I think ExxonMobil, as the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) pointed out, have in recent years not received the discretionary increases that they used to. We looked at that issue in the Select Committee report on defined benefit pension schemes, which we published on 26 March. We took oral evidence from the BP Pensioner Group, and we also heard from the HP Pension Association—the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland also mentioned that company. The association represents people who previously worked for the computer company Digital, which Hewlett-Packard acquired. Much of those people’s working lives was before 1997. There was no general requirement to uprate pensions in payment before 1997, and our witness told us that Hewlett-Packard pensioners had received only three discretionary increases to pre-1997 benefits, amounting to 5% in total, since 2002, which is just over 20 years.
In our report we called for the Pensions Regulator to find out how many schemes had discretionary increases on pre-1997 benefits in their rules and how that discretion has been exercised in recent years. Given recent improvements in scheme funding levels, we also called for DWP to look at
“ways to ensure that scheme members’ reasonable expectations for benefit enhancement are met, particularly where there has been a history of discretionary increases.”
Perhaps the Minister, when he winds up, would comment on whether he will look at the reasonable expectations for benefit enhancements for scheme members with a lot of pre-1997 service, and whether they can be met. The Hewlett-Packard Pension Association is calling for a code of ethical practice to be drawn up between the Pensions Regulator and DWP, particularly on pre-1997 pensions, and for their former employer and its pension trustees to work out a policy for sustainable future discretionary increases.

Alistair Carmichael: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for touching on an area that I should perhaps have given more attention to. The most important protection we can give the beneficiaries is through ensuring that there are independent trustees, and that the office of trustee cannot be manipulated by the company. Does the Select Committee have any proposals for improvement in that regard?

Stephen Timms: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. We have noted a bit of a move towards sole trustees in a number of cases, which clearly gives rise to concerns about how one person can represent the interests of the members of a pension scheme. We are reflecting on that in our work, but one of the members of the Hewlett-Packard scheme wrote to me this week—he may well also have written to other Members—about
“the further fear and despair they are now feeling as it dawns upon them that their company and pension scheme trustees are meanwhile preparing plans to derisk by transferring their Pensioner responsibilities to an Insurance Company”—
something the right hon. Gentleman touched on. That transfer will quite possibly mean
“no subsequent possibility ever for pre-1997 increases.”
He calls that “a frightening prospect”, and it is hard to disagree.
The Committee also looked at concerns about the new defined benefit funding regime to be introduced for scheme valuations from September. We noted that the regime had been developed
“in a different era when the vast majority of DB schemes were in deficit and amidst concern that employers were seeking to evade their responsibility to underfunded schemes.”
There have been big changes since then, especially in the wake of the liability-driven investment crisis following the Budget of 18 months or so ago. In particular, there have been significant improvements in scheme funding, but the principles of the new regime have not been changed. Schemes are expected to target a position of low dependency on the sponsoring employer, meaning low-investment risk at the point of significant maturity. That has promoted concerns that the funding code will, when introduced, force more unnecessary de-risking, particularly among open schemes, as well as among those that are closed but have long time horizons, which would increase costs to employers and result in premature closure.
We said that the DWP and the Pensions Regulator needed
“to act urgently to ensure they do not inadvertently finish off what few open schemes remain by further increasing the risk aversion”.
In a letter to the Committee on 18 December, the Minister told us that both the Department and the Pensions Regulator were
“acutely aware of the need to take account of the specific needs of open schemes,”
and he agreed that
“open schemes should not be forced into an inappropriate de-risking journey.”
We welcomed that assurance, but it needs now to be reflected in the final wording of the funding code and in the regulator’s approach.
The vote in Parliament on the statutory instrument came before the final version of the funding code was published, so Members did not quite know what they were voting for at that point. We recommended that the Department and the Pensions Regulator should work with open schemes to address their concerns, particularly on the employer covenant horizon—the length of time for which they are confident in the sponsoring employer’s willingness and ability to support the scheme—and report back to us on how they will do so before the new funding code is laid before Parliament.
Since our report was published, feedback from schemes suggests that things may not be moving in the right direction. In a consultation response last week, the University Superannuation Scheme—a large and still open scheme—described the regulator’s proposed approach as
“not fit for purpose for open DB schemes”.
In its view, the statement that it will be required to complete under the terms of the new code will demand
“significant…resource for little or no benefit to our members.”
To the USS, and to me, that appears inconsistent with the assurances that open schemes will not be adversely impacted by the new funding regime. The USS adds:
“Not…having had sight of the revised…Funding Code and accompanying covenant guidance has exacerbated”
their worries.
I know that the Minister understands these concerns well. Closure of those schemes would reduce pension fund investment in the productive economy at a time when the Chancellor wants—absolutely rightly—to increase investment from pension schemes into the productive economy. Can the Minister tell us when he expects the new funding code to be published, whether he will report back to the Committee before then on how the concerns of open schemes have been addressed, and whether he is open to considering a separate chapter in the funding code, setting out how the code will apply to open schemes?
Let me take a few minutes to talk about what is happening on the defined contribution side of the picture.

Julian Lewis: I wonder whether the Chair of the Select Committee shares my concern that when those schemes go wrong, it seems to take an interminable time to get any form of resolution. I have in mind a scheme that I am sure he is familiar with: the Atomic Energy Authority Technology pension scheme. The Government gave strong guarantees from the Dispatch Box that transferring into that scheme would give benefits roughly similar to those of remaining in the original Atomic Energy Authority scheme, but that did not happen. I first quoted the concerns of my constituent, Dr Keith Brown, in 2016. The most recent answer that I received to a question on this subject was:
“This is a complex issue requiring further consideration”
between the DWP and the Cabinet Office. I first raised the matter in 2016, but the Government are still saying that in 2024.

Stephen Timms: The right hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point. That is certainly a very long-running case, and the Select Committee has recently been looking at a notable pension scam case—the Norton Motorcycle Company pension schemes, which was a straightforward scam—that has been running for years and years. He is right that we need to find ways to speed up some of these processes, because the victims in these cases have their lives really blighted. We are allowing that blight to last for years and years, and that needs to change.
On the issue of defined-contribution schemes, the Committee published a report in September 2022 on saving for later life, which pointed out that auto-enrolment has been a very big success, doubling the proportion of eligible workers saving in a pension. I applaud the approach now being taken by Uber following the Supreme Court case that it lost, and the recognition agreement that it now has with the GMB trade union. It is now auto-enrolling large numbers of its drivers into a pension scheme, albeit with higher opt-out rates than elsewhere, which is making some real inroads into pension scheme saving in the gig economy. We need much more of that among other gig economy workers. However, many auto-enrolled people are not contributing enough at the moment for an adequate retirement income, and quite a lot of them are probably not aware of that. Contribution rates need to go up.
As such, the Committee recommended that the Government should first implement the recommendations of the 2017 auto-enrolment review: reducing the minimum age for auto-enrolment from 22 to 18, and minimum contributions being paid from the first pound of earnings.  Almost all of our witnesses supported those measures, and we welcome Royal Assent being given to the legislation that will implement them. That legislation requires a public consultation on implementation, and for its findings to be reported to Parliament before the regulations are made. However, as yet there has been no consultation, and nor has any date been announced for it, so can the Minister tell us when the Department will be consulting on implementation of those regulations? Will that consultation be launched before the end of this Parliament, and does he still expect—as the Government have long maintained—that those changes will be implemented by the mid-2020s?
We always knew that auto-enrolment would lead to many small pension pots. People change jobs, so they accumulate, on average, 10 pension pots across their working life. By November 2022, there were over 12 million deferred pots under £1,000. The Department for Work and Pensions has proposed automatic default consolidation to deal with small pots, but that will not in itself stop small pots from building up in future. As such, the Department has proposed a lifetime provider model with member choice, so that employees tell their employer which pot to put their contributions into, and a pot for life, so that employees stay in the pension scheme they started out in throughout their working life unless they choose to move.
Consultation responses on those proposals raised some very serious concerns from the TUC, Age UK, and the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association and the Association of British Insurers—the main industry bodies. Age UK, for example, said that the proposals would be
“highly disruptive and lead to poor outcomes for mass market savers.”
Major concerns raised in the responses include potentially unwinding the consensus on auto-enrolment; that other measures in train, such as pensions dashboards, value for money and consolidation, will reduce the number of small pots anyway and improve value; that the proposals would benefit savers with larger pots, but harm lower-income savers; and that they would increase employers’ costs while entirely removing their role in selecting a pension scheme for their staff.
I have heard time and again, as I am sure the Minister has, how important employers are to trust in pension savings and that employers have delivered in auto-enrolment what we have asked them to deliver. Other such concerns are that these changes would require a new infrastructure, which would be hard to build, as pensions dashboards have certainly proved to be; and that they distract attention from the important effort to increase auto-enrolment contributions over time, which the responses argue—correctly, I think—should be the main focus of changes over the next few years. The Minister will be very familiar with all those concerns. Will he tell us when the Department will publish its response to the lifetime provider model consultation, and does he acknowledge that responses to the consultation so far have indicated very significant risks in the Government’s proposal for rather limited gains?
There is a lot going on in this area. I am very grateful to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland for giving the House the opportunity to reflect on all this at this particular time. There has been some good progress, for example with auto-enrolment, but a lot more work is needed. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply.

Stephen Doughty: It is a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), and I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing the debate. It gives us a chance to raise a number of issues, and I have listened with particular interest to the remarks about defined-benefit schemes and the recent report of the Select Committee, which is what I want to talk about today.
I speak, as the MP for Cardiff South and Penarth, on behalf of the many individuals affected by the collapse of the Allied Steel and Wire pension fund. That of course affected not just constituents in Cardiff South and Penarth, but people across south Wales and in other locations in the UK. I have regularly met constituents and others affected by that terrible injustice. Over the time I have been in the House, I have heard the passionate way in which they have made their case, which is heart- breaking. They put into a pension scheme expecting a defined benefit after many years of service in a tough industry—steelmaking, which has a proud tradition in my constituency, as it does across south Wales—yet they have not received what they paid in for. That is essentially because the employees were members of the ASW pension plan and the ASW Sheerness Steel Group pension fund, both of which were wound up underfunded.
Those members ended up having to rely on the financial assistance scheme, which, as has been said, provides financial assistance to members of defined-benefit pension schemes who lost all or part of their pension following their scheme coming to an end between 1 January 1997 and 5 April 2005. The arrangements that were made resulted, in theory, in members receiving something broadly equivalent to 90% of the expected pension, which is obviously less than what they expected to receive, but this could be reduced if it was above the FAS cap. Of course, members who had paid in substantial amounts before 5 April 1997 did not receive any index linking, which means that the value of their pension pots has been substantially reduced. Even the funding that went in after that date will not have kept pace with actual inflation, because it was related to the increase of up to a maximum of 2.5%. The net result is that many of them received somewhere between 40% and 50% less than they felt they were entitled to.
Those members, many of whom paid into the schemes in good faith, have often explained to me very clearly how they were originally sold the schemes. They were told it was going to be absolutely solid—as solid as the steel they were making—yet they found themselves in real difficulties in later life. Sadly, many of those members have since passed away, or suffered illness, financial hardship, mental distress and many other issues during that time.

Christine Jardine: The hon. Member raises a point that I have been particularly concerned about. Constituents have recently come to me because they are facing problems getting their pension entitlement from Police Scotland, so from a public sector pension. One of the lessons we need to learn from these continual scandals is that we need to act quickly, because the longer we take, the more people lose out, and people pass away and never get the justice they deserve.

Stephen Doughty: I agree with the hon. Lady. Indeed, that is reflected in what the Committee set out, which I will come to in a moment. Quite understandably, those pensioners have made it clear to me that they see themselves in the ilk of other huge, historic injustices, such as those we have heard about in recent months with the sub-postmasters Horizon scandal and the infected blood scandal. Obviously, the longer it goes on, the more pain and financial and mental distress they endure, and tragically many pass without receiving any of what they were entitled to, and certainly not the full amount.
I have met numerous Pensions Ministers and written to them many times. I have spoken in this House many times and told the stories of these pensioners. I thank shadow Front-Bench colleagues, in particular the acting shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft), who is on the Front Bench today. I also thank previous shadow Pensions Ministers, including the late Jack Dromey, for all they did to engage with pensioners, but people are still not getting the answers that they rightly expect—I will come on to the response that I have had from the Minister in due course.
Let me turn briefly to the recommendations in the DWP report, which I know the Minister is familiar with. Its 22nd recommendation states:
“Financial Assistance Scheme members are likely to have more of their service before 1997, so are particularly likely to be affected by non-indexation of pre-1997 benefits. Any improvements for PPF members should also apply to FAS members.
Given the age of many FAS members, the Government should legislate as a matter of urgency to provide indexation…for pre-1997 rights…The Government should review the Financial Assistance Scheme, including looking at the case for removing other discrepancies in FAS compensation, compared to the PPF”.
Paragraph 156 of the report states:
“Like the Deprived Pensioners’ Association and Prospect, the Pensions Action Group—”
which has worked on behalf of these pensioners over many years—
“said that indexation on pre-1997 benefits is its priority. Most FAS members have the majority of their service before 1997 and most were in schemes that provided for indexation of between 3% and 5% on all members’ pensionable service. Non-indexation of benefits…means that the average FAS award (£2,700) is progressively lower than the amount expected from the original pension schemes. Terry Monk said: ‘people should get what they paid for—end of story. If people paid for it, they should get it.’”
That is a sentiment I have heard over and over again from my constituents and others.
As I said, I have engaged with many Pensions Ministers —there have been many over the years while I have been in the House—and I had a letter from the Minister on 18 April regarding those on whose behalf I wrote to him. It said:
“I am aware of, and welcome, the report of the Work and Pensions Select Committee into defined benefit pensions. These are complex matters which require careful consideration. Any solution needs to be balance and take account of the interests of Financial Assistance Scheme members and taxpayers who fund the Scheme. Therefore, I am now actively considering next steps…with an aim to publish our response in early summer.”
Will the Minister meet me, my constituents, and other representatives who have been campaigning on this for so long? Will he give some timeline for when he expects to respond to the Select Committee and the specific  points? Will he provide his Department’s estimates of the costs involved, and say how those weigh up in different scenarios? This issue obviously affects thousands of individuals. I have heard different figures quoted at different points for addressing the concerns, and it would be good to understand his independent assessment.
A passionate case has been made by my constituents and those affected. This was a highly publicised scheme. The former ASW site is now under new ownership but it is still at the heart of my constituency and a visible sight in Butetown and Tremorfa. Many of those affected live locally and did not get what they thought they were going to get. That has caused huge distress to them and their families. We need to provide them with some answers, and I urge the Minister to look carefully at the case they have made and at the findings of the Committee.

Therese Coffey: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing it and the Backbench Business Committee on granting it.
This is an important matter, no matter what age people are. I appreciate that today we are not talking particularly about state pensions, but I call on those on the shadow Front Bench to please desist from this scaremongering about what may be happening with state pensions. All parties have committed to having the triple lock in their election manifestos, and it has worked well. There has been a big uplift in the state pension since 2010. We worked on that with the Liberal Democrats when we were first in coalition and have continued with it, with a couple of exceptional reasons in the pandemic—once when we used primary legislation to ensure that people could get the triple lock, and again when we recognised the unusual situation with covid earnings. We know that pensioners have welcomed the significant increase in their first state pension payment of this tax year, with most of them seeing that significant uplift in the week just gone.

Stephen Doughty: The former Secretary of State says we should not be scaremongering, but there are some serious concerns. Does she accept that the Pensions Regulator report said that the mini-Budget of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), contributed to a £425 billion drop in pension fund assets, which has affected every pensioner and every potential pensioner in this country? Will the former Secretary of State not at least accept some responsibility for that?

Therese Coffey: I certainly will not accept responsibility for that. I am conscious of the arrangement with the Pension Regulator, but also the situation that happened with liability-driven investments. The Bank of England saw that as a risk in 2018 and did nothing about it. I come back to the fact that the state pension is well trusted and well regarded, and it is scaremongering to suggest anything otherwise.
I am conscious that today we are talking about private pension schemes. In my short time as Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what came up time  and again—this Government addressed it—was the reduction in the lifetime allowance to about £1 million, which the Conservatives had introduced. I appreciate that for many people, it would be a mountain to climb to get to that kind of pension pot, but for doctors, consultants and some nurses, the lifetime allowance was proving a barrier to them continuing to work within the NHS. A sensible approach was taken, and I am pleased we have done that.
One thing that has been constant is the generous tax elements for private pensions. It is why we have had such a successful industry and why there is a difference between us and many other countries around the world in what comes from the state directly and what comes through private pensions. I recognise that the previous Labour Administration put in place the building blocks for auto-enrolment and the creation of the National Employment Savings Trust, and that was a good thing to do. I am pleased that we started that journey just over a decade ago.
Contrary to the predictions, it was good to see how many young people did not opt out. That is a huge success story, and it is why I share with the Chairman of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), a keenness to make sure we get on with the consultation to which he referred. I am sure the Minister will answer that point. I appreciate that there will always be concerns about the possible impact on jobs. I get it, and it may be that we need a two-stage consultation: one stage about age and one considering a lower earnings level. It would be good to get on, because everybody realises that the sooner people start, the more they benefit. That is an important part of why auto-enrolment has been such a success.
Another recent change in legislation is the creation of collective defined contribution schemes. Clearly, there is still some interest in those, and Royal Mail is potentially closest to starting one. We should see what we can do to advocate for that model for many institutions. This is a brave comment to make in this speech, but I wonder whether Parliament should lead by example and see whether the Members of Parliament pension scheme should move to this approach. I am conscious that the taxpayer pays for our contributions through the Government and so on, and we have an uncertain career path by becoming Members of Parliament, but where something is good enough for others and we are creating legislation for it, we should consider leading by example and giving some impetus to that new legislative vehicle. I may not be popular for saying that, and I am conscious of how some of the issues with the McCloud judgment and similar matters led to a two-tier system, which has now been rectified. However, that scheme undoubtedly need not be as complex.
I am pleased about the changes that happened in the Treasury, responding to calls from Departments such as the DWP, which led to an opening up through the Mansion House reforms of the consolidation of funds and aspects of super-funds. What we need from pension investment is good returns so that our pensioners will be prosperous—that is ultimately what this is about—and we need to galvanise what we are doing to ensure that.
I am not one of those people who believes that we will be retiring at 75 or whatever—far from it. There is a rational end to that approach. It will not necessarily take courage but it will require some imagination, co-ordination and collaboration to ensure that we have  sustainable pension outcomes for the future. That is where we can start to learn from other countries. When I was in the Department for Work and Pensions, I was interested in what is done in Japan. Dare I say, if I end up doing another PhD in the future, it will probably be on how pensions are part-funded in Japan, recognising its ageing demographics? We should recognise that that is the situation in our country, too. We should not be all doom and gloom about this issue. We need to innovate, but we can also look at what others have done to address it.
There is another really important thing. I started work in 1997 for a company called Mars Inc. where—it was little known to me; I did not realise how beneficial this was—I was on a final salary defined-benefit pension scheme with zero contribution. I did not have to contribute a penny. Over time, that did not stay affordable for Mars. I had not appreciated that benefit—I think to some extent that is why auto-enrolment is so successful—but in that job I learned the importance of making sure that employers are careful with how they manage pensions on behalf of employees and the role of the trustees.
We can think back to Robert Maxwell raiding pensions. I know that Mars sold a business to his company, and that went wrong in terms of the pensions. People may not be aware that pensions are not included as part of the TUPE process—they are specifically excluded, recognising how they could limit sensible company mergers and acquisitions—but I am conscious of how people may not really think about that until much later in life.
To return to the reforms and why they are necessary, the trustee is so important. I had hoped that we would have a “year of the trustee” campaign. Although being a trustee is an interesting role to have—I admit that I have never been one, although I have expressed interest in the past—it means being heavily involved in regulation. That could be overwhelming at times for people who may want to be a trustee because they believe in the people they work with and those who worked there before them, as well as being mindful of the future, but who are not necessarily well versed in all the ins and outs.
I know that the fiduciary duty is really drummed into trustees. For defined-contribution schemes in particular—where, candidly, there is no expectation of what the outcome will be—the hammering home of that fiduciary duty has led to a low-risk approach, which has been very low-cost but with very low returns. That is not what we should want. No wonder people are buying other homes and becoming landlords: they see a fixed asset, which they know they can sell in the future and on which they can make a reasonable expectation, whereas people putting money into their pension pots have no huge sense of what that could buy them in the future. We have changed the laws so that people do not have to put everything into an annuity, but it still is a matter of concern. I am conscious that there have been issues with the pensions dashboard, and I hope that the Money and Pensions Service will solve that. Perhaps the Minister can update us on progress in that regard. It is vital that people start to look at that now, not just as they are about to retire.
What are the benefits of the reforms, and why should there be sufficient professional advice? Those intermediary advisers often get significant fees, but still recommend that people go for gilts and pretty low returns. There is a  different way. I hope that the reforms will start to be taken up by the industry, which asked for them, in order to take full advantage and recognise the issues ahead. We need to see the impact of the changes in legislation and the variety of consultations. We made the changes to improve prosperity for pensioners now and in future. I would be keen to hear from the Minister if there is any news on market trends in that regard. The local government pension scheme should lead by example. The Government have put greater demand on local government through levelling up, but is vital that we see that change.
There is a second part of pension schemes that is worth raising. I wonder whether Members know just how many trillions of assets there are in UK pensions alone. The answer is about £3 trillion. Organisations such as Make My Money Matter are trying to encourage people to use their future pension pot to ensure we have a thriving planet. I do not agree with the divestment approach, but it is important that companies invested in the energy of today are invested in the energy of the future. Without the support of pension funds, we will not get that necessary investment.
Pensions are a superpower for the prosperity of people and the planet. I was pleased when we introduced the regulations on disclosure of alignment to the Paris agreement. I would like to go further and encourage the Secretary of State to bring forward similar regulations to apply to nature. Work has already started—the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures made it happen for carbon. I think we were the first in the world to do that, by the way. We can do the same for nature. The Taskforce for Nature-related Financial Disclosures is a good comparison. The International Sustainability Standards Board is looking at that, and we are close to getting that outcome. I appreciate that the Minister may not have considered that recently and he may not be able to respond, but I encourage him to do that. We only have a certain amount of time, although I hope that as science allows us to live longer, we will claim our pensions for longer, so we want to ensure a prosperous future.
On the superpower element, I praise Nest, which has done a great job. It was set up just over a decade ago, and now manages a huge amount of money. There is even room for it to expand through consolidation, which the Pension Protection Fund could also look at. Nest is leading by example. As a pension firm that is starting to invest in the energy of the future with a substantial proportion of its funds, rather than rely on gilts and similar, Nest should be truly celebrated.
Although fiduciary duty must be the No. 1 priority, let us try to get more trustees to recognise that they are responsible for ensuring that the returns from DC schemes are as good as the benefits for members of defined benefit schemes. We need to release the market and protect people as we have done. Pensions being a superpower is not necessarily the sexiest thing to say in this Chamber, but it is one of the most important decisions that we have made in legislation in recent years. We need to continue that momentum.

Jim Shannon: I thank and commend the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for leading today’s debate. I attended his half-hour Westminster Hall debate on this issue and  supported him when he outlined his case in the short time he had. He has done exceptionally well today in doing the same thing, but in much more detail.
It is important to discuss pension schemes, and to ensure they are properly understood and regulated. There are still so many people out there who are misinformed, or do not really understand how pensions work or what their purpose is, so I am glad to be able to debate this issue. The Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), referred to auto-enrolment. I want to refer to it, too. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland set out a lot of detail, as did the Chair of the Select Committee and others, referring to a number of companies. Most people will obtain a pension at some stage of their lives and, through employment, will actively pay into it.
One point I would like to make, and which the Chair of the Select Committee referred to, relates to the provision of pensions for our young people and what steps we can take to ensure they understand that provision. This is another issue that I believe should be taught within learning for life and work. It should be in the curriculum and a part of our focus. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said that he had his first pension at the age of 22. I had my first pension at the age of 18. My mother took me down to John Thompson —he is not here any more—who was the pension man in Ballywalter. I said, “I don’t need one.” He said, “Oh, you do.” And I signed up. Of course, you never say no to your mum. I certainly didn’t and I do not regret that. Over the years, and after taking out other pensions, all of a sudden they are quite valuable and exceptionally good to have. Also when I was an 18-year-old, my mother took me down to the Northern Bank—now Danske Bank —and opened an account for me. She gave me £10 to start the account. Way back in the ’60s, that was quite a lot of money. You could probably have bought a wee car at that time. I am not sure what state the car would have been in, but I think you could have bought one for £10 or thereabouts. The point I am making is that it is important to save and to have a pension.
We ask young people to look to their future and to start to plan, but there is little provision within the education system to teach them about pensions, savings and mortgages, and there should be. I know that that is not the Minister’s direct responsibility, but perhaps he could give some assurance on whether it could become a subject for the curriculum. I have had conversations with my staff on the importance of paying into pensions. My youngest staff member’s response was exactly that. She bought her first house, saving for almost a decade for the deposit and paying thousands of pounds for mortgage advisers, insurance, solicitors fees and lenders fees. Young people are just about surviving to live in the present, but there is now an expectation that they must save in a pension for their futures. The purchase of a house is such a critical factor that a pension often takes second place. What steps can be taken to ease the financial burdens on our young people and enable them to see the benefits of taking advantage of pensions?
I recently asked a parliamentary question on considerations being given to a potential opt-in scheme for young people under the age of 18. There is massive  cause for this. Another two girls in my office have been working since the age of 13—part time, obviously, but still working—and so many young people out there are employed from as young as that. Why shouldn’t they reap some sort of benefit from working at that age? I understand the Government are to make a change to the Pensions (Extension of Automatic Enrolment) Act 2023 to enable that to happen in the “mid-2020s”. As we quickly approach that, perhaps the Minister could give an update on the matter and where it stands.
My last point on pensions relates to the WASPI women. This is not the subject of today’s debate, and there will be a debate on it in a fortnight’s time. I secured a debate last month in Westminster Hall on the issue. Although it is not the pension issue for today’s debate, the scale of the issue and its popularity highlights the importance of planning pensions. That is the point I want to refer to. The Minister will be aware that compensation is owed, but, given the nature of today’s debate, let me gently remind him that it is possible for lessons to be learnt. In setting the scene, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland spoke of what had gone wrong and the need to ensure that it would not happen again, and we hope that, as a result of this debate and others, the issue of the WASPI women will never happen again either.
The incentive to save for the future must be there for people of all ages, not just young people but those in their 30s and 40s who voluntarily do not pay into their pensions because they do not think it worth their while, given the current cost of living and the many demands on their purses. It is also worth noting that some employers match employee contributions, while others pay considerably more. The incentive must be there for people to prepare for life after work, and I firmly believe that that should start in the LLW and careers sector of the education system. We should “learn them early”. We should reach young people in the right way and prepare them for the world that is to come, and pensions are clearly a part of that.

Allan Dorans: I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), for their work in bringing this important matter to the House.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland mentioned pension schemes including those of Shell and BP, but I want to focus on the Hewlett Packard Enterprise pension scheme, and a decision that directly affects more than 1,500 people living in my constituency and in neighbouring constituencies. I speak on behalf of my constituent Patricia Kennedy, as well as 9,625 members of the Hewlett Packard Enterprise UK pension scheme, which includes more than 4,000 members of the Hewlett Packard Pension Association. These are people with an average of 20 years’ loyal service, the bulk of it pre-1997. They were promised a good pension. They expected a “fair deal” from a world-leading corporation that they helped to build, but now find themselves left with a “raw deal”. In general, their pensions now have less than 70% of the expected buying power.
In 1977, Digital Equipment Corporation of Massachusetts opened a factory in Ayr. The company, known locally as Digital, was a major boost to the local economy, and,  indeed, apart from the Government, was one of the largest employers in Scotland, with a major production facility on the outskirts of Ayr. At the time, the Digital pension scheme was regarded as one of the best in the United Kingdom. Annual increases were discretionary, but pensions more than kept pace with the best available.
In 1998 Digital Equipment merged with Compaq, and in 2001 that organisation, in turn, merged with Hewlett Packard. In 2017 Hewlett Packard split, and Hewlett Packard Enterprise took over responsibility for the Digital pension scheme. Employees of Digital, Compaq and Hewlett Packard joined and paid into the pension scheme in the reasonable expectation that future pension benefits, which would have provided them with a reasonable pension on retirement, would continue to increase in line with the cost of living. Sadly, however, that has not happened. Since Hewlett Packard Enterprise took over the pension scheme there have been only three discretionary increases, of 1% in 2004, 1% in 2008, and 3% in 2022.
Hewlett Packard Enterprise, while presenting itself to its customers and investors as the most ethical company in the world, is taking advantage of the weakness in the UK pension legislation relating to pre-1997 service. That has resulted in a “raw deal” average pension of £9,700, which, even when topped up with the maximum state pension, results in “low income living” as defined by the Government. Regardless of its legality, this practice is heartless, immoral and unethical, and it is absolutely unacceptable from a major global corporation.
By contrast, Hewlett Packard Enterprise has had an global annual net revenue—a profit—of between $50 billion and $120 billion since 2002, totalling around $1.5 trillion. In 2023, Hewlett Packard’s chief executive was paid $1.3 million, a bonus of almost $2 million and $15.7 million in stock options. Shareholders got $1 billion in dividends that year.
If other, far less profitable companies can pay increases to their pensioners, surely Hewlett Packard can as well. We might ask why it does not. The answer is simply that it does not have to. In fact, it does not even have to explain how it comes to the decision that it makes each year. The decision-making process, what factors are considered and how pensioners’ needs are represented all lack transparency, and there is nothing that compels the company to change that. It has made its point for years, and there is a deadlock.
I am a realist. Although I call on the UK Government to put pressure on a US-headquartered corporation, that is unlikely to break the deadlock. However, there is a way forward. On Wednesday 18 October 2023, David Carson, a representative of the Hewlett Packard Pension Association, gave oral evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee on the defined benefits pension schemes inquiry, as was mentioned by the Chair of the Committee. The Hewlett Packard Pension Association also made three written submissions, which feature in the Committee’s final report. The Committee mentioned these oral and written submissions in paragraph 83 of the report, and paragraph 9 of the conclusions. It commented:
“Some pension scheme members are dependent on discretionary increases to ensure their pension payments keep up with the cost of living. Where these have not been awarded the effect has been, over time, to erode their standard of living. This can be particularly the case for those with rights built up before April 1997, when there was no general requirement to index-link pensions in payment.”
The Pensions Regulator should undertake research to find out: how many schemes have provision for discretionary increases on pre-1997 benefits included in their rules; whether the discretion is for the trustees, sponsoring employers or both; the number of years in which schemes have paid discretionary increases on pre-1997 rights; and the number of years in which they have not done so, as well as the reasons for that. As a matter of urgency, I strongly encourage the Pensions Minister, the Government and the Pensions Regulator to complete the research, which I believe will make it undeniably clear that an ethical code of conduct is required to ensure collaboration between companies and trustees on developing policy and strategy for pre-1997 discretionary increases.
Clarification is also needed from the Government on section 221A of the Pensions Act 2004. That section was inserted by paragraph (2) of schedule 10 to the Pension Schemes Act 2021, which states:
“The trustees or managers must determine, and from time to time review and if necessary revise, a strategy for ensuring that pensions and other benefits under the scheme can be provided over the longer term.”
That could be central to breaking the deadlock. If discretionary increases are viewed in the same way as other benefits in a pension scheme, it follows that companies and trustees must work together to devise a strategy for ensuring that pensions and other benefits under a scheme can be provided over the longer term.
We also need the research to be done by the DWP and the Pensions Regulator, a code of ethical conduct to be developed, and clarification from the Government that the intent of the Pension Schemes Act 2021 is that companies and trustees must work together to devise a strategy for ensuring that pensions and other benefits under a scheme, which include discretionary increases, can be provided over the longer term. I appreciate that the Minister may not be able to provide clarification on these matters today, but I would be grateful for a written response in due course.
Finally, although this debate focuses on private pensions, no debate on pensions would be complete without mentioning the greatest ever pension injustice—the 3.8 million WASPI women, including 6,800 in my constituency, who were not informed by successive Governments of changes to the age at which the state pension would be payable. The Government have ignored the plight of these women for nine years.
The Government hoped that the WASPI women would go away, but they have not, although 40,000 are unfortunately dying each year without getting any form of compensation. Some 240,000 have already tragically passed away, including my constituents Margaret Meikle and Morag Syne. The Government must urgently support and progress the private Member’s Bill tabled by my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown). The Bill had its First Reading earlier this year, and it would require the Secretary of State to publish proposals for a compensation scheme for women born between 6 April 1950 and 5 April 1960 inclusive who have been adversely affected by the increase to the state pension age.

Vicky Foxcroft: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing and opening this debate.  He has spoken passionately about this subject in the House before, especially in relation to the BP, Shell and other oil and gas schemes, and about the way that decisions are being made because of concerns other than the best interests of scheme members. I admire his knowledge and determination to support those who have been affected by adverse changes to their pension schemes.
My good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), passionately raised the case of his constituents who are Allied Steel and Wire pensioners, and he spoke of the need for the Government to carefully consider the Select Committee’s report. I hope that the Minister will meet hon. Members and their constituents, and that he will update hon. Members who have so doughtily put forward their constituents’ cases. I worked as a trade union official in a previous life, and I represented many members in pension disputes, so I have experience of this area.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate, and I thank colleagues for their valuable and insightful contributions. Young people are frequently, quite rightly, advised to start planning for their retirement as early as possible. When people make plans for their future, they do so in good faith. A contract is effectively created between employer, or state, and employee to provide for an income to be paid in later life. Although it would be naive to think that nothing could change during the intervening decades, people make decisions about how they will afford their retirement when they enrol in a pension scheme.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has previously spoken in this place about the emotional representations he has received from people affected by the changes to the BP defined benefit scheme. I am sure nobody here could fail to be moved by the words of the dying BP pensioner who was told that his widow will no longer be protected from inflation, despite previous assurances. Pensions are, after all, not only an income while we are alive. They are also a way of providing for loved ones after we are gone.
My Lewisham, Deptford, constituency is not so well known for its oil and gas, but I have a constituent who is affected. When they contacted me last year, my constituent outlined how, in practical terms, BP’s decision to override the recommendations of its pension fund trustees meant that the pensions of some 60,000 individuals in the UK had declined, in real terms, by 11% in just two years. For an individual in their 60s on an average pension, that 11% cut equates to a loss of income of about £60,000 across their retirement. Some 16,000 of the individuals affected are in their 80s and 90s, and it is not a great leap to assume that many may be in poor health and may have faced spiralling energy costs over the last few years. That is just one example of the huge impact that policy changes can have on individuals.
Let me turn to the wider pensions landscape. There are three types of pension in this country: defined benefit, defined contribution and the state pension. All have been touched on at various points during this debate. We have reached something of a critical moment in pensions policy. The last far-reaching review of the UK’s pension system, carried out by the Pensions Commission, reported in 2005. Since then, the UK has  weathered a global financial crisis, a pandemic and the highest levels of inflation for almost 40 years. Over the same period, home ownership rates have fallen and there has been a big rise in self-employment, thanks to the gig economy. In short, the way people are—or are not—saving for their retirement has changed, and we need to determine whether the current pensions landscape is still working.
That is why in November my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) announced a wide-ranging pensions review. Our review will look across the whole sector. It will set out proposals to ensure that individuals get the best possible returns, and will identify the barriers to pension funds investing more in UK productive assets. Perhaps a quick review of the track records of Labour and the Conservatives will provide further evidence of why Labour is best placed to hold that review. Under the last Labour Government, pensioner poverty halved—a million were lifted out of poverty. So how are things going under the Conservatives? On their watch, one in five pensioners now lives in poverty; gas and electricity bills have rocketed; mortgages and rents have gone through the roof, and more older people are renting into retirement; and increasing numbers of pensioners are relying on their hard-earned savings to get by.
Analysis carried out recently by Labour has shown that the state pension is the main source of income for more than 6 million people. Women, over-75s and single pensioners would pay the heaviest price if the Tories cut the state pension to fill the £46 billion tax black hole created by their unfunded proposal to cut national insurance. That would see the pension cut by £96 a week, or pensioners paying more in tax. That is proof that you can’t trust the Tories with the state pension.
In the midst of a cost of living crisis that is hitting pensioners hard, the Government are failing to ensure that families are getting the support that they are entitled to; up to 880,000 eligible pensioners are not claiming pension credit. When we look at various workplace pensions, our analysis shows that average pension pots are £6,300 smaller than they would have been had wages grown at the rate they did under the last Labour Government. A worker on average earnings can expect to have amassed a £70,600 pension pot since 2010. However, if wages during that period had grown at the rate they did under Labour, the same worker would have built up a £76,900 pot.
Working people will feel the cost of Tory chaos for years to come, with the Government’s failure to make work pay wiping thousands of pounds off the value of the average pension pot. All that is before we get to the Government’s broken promises on the triple lock, and the billions that the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) wiped off pension funds with her disastrous mini-Budget. We may not represent the same party, but I hope that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will agree that older people are paying a heavy economic price for the mess created by the Tories.
The number of people aged over 65 will increase from 11 million to 14.5 million over the next 20 years. We are living longer—one in four babies born today will be around to celebrate their 100th birthday—yet the Centre for Ageing Better says that a financially secure and healthy later life is becoming increasingly unlikely for millions of people.
Labour’s record on pensions is clear. We lifted a million pensioners out of poverty. We introduced pension credit, boosting the incomes of the poorest pensioners, a disproportionate number of whom were women. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) rightly pointed out, we created automatic enrolment, which brought 10 million more people into workplace pensions and gave them a level of retirement income they otherwise never would have had. When the Tories broke the triple lock, which has been vital in protecting pensioners’ incomes and providing security, we campaigned against that. Under Labour, the triple lock is safe.
Furthermore, we will never put the nation’s financial stability at risk by playing fast and loose with the economy. We will tackle the cost of living crisis head-on and ensure that individuals have the security they deserve in retirement. We will give future pensioners the ability to prepare for retirement with confidence by creating more better-paid jobs in every part of the country, helping people get into, stay in and get on in work, and championing decent second pensions for all.
Pensioners, along with everyone else in the country, need change. Labour has a plan to grow the economy, put money back in people’s pockets, make work pay and be the party of pensioners again. Although it is not within the Minister’s power to call a general election, perhaps he could have a word with someone who can.

Paul Maynard: It is a pleasure to be here today. I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and the Backbench Business Committee for allowing the debate, which is a second outing on the issue within a few months.
We all agree that occupational pensions are crucially important. Many hard-working people across the country depend on their occupational pensions for an income in retirement, having spent years paying into their pension scheme. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland spoke powerfully, once again, about the situation that his constituents face, and he referred to others as well. He spoke powerfully about the situation as he saw it. All of us have constituents who have done the right thing, worked hard and contributed to their occupational pension scheme, so it matters to all of us that they get what they have been promised when it falls due, as set out in the rules of the scheme.
When we last debated the issue, in Westminster Hall in January, I made the point that I would not speak about specific schemes, and I will not do so today. I will comment in more general terms. What comments I might make about the generality of the issue should not be taken as an oblique commentary on any of the schemes mentioned in the debate today, no matter how tempting that might be for some.
Since the debate in January, the world has indeed moved on, and I have tried to take some steps as well. As has been said, we published a consultation on options for defined-benefit schemes in February. The consultation reflected a new funding landscape, where funding levels are generally high and many schemes are in surplus. The consultation sought feedback on proposals to make surplus extraction easier, where it is safe to do so, and on the model for a future public sector consolidator,  operated by the Pension Protection Fund. The consultation is now closed and we are currently analysing the responses. It closed only a fortnight ago, so we are not quite there yet, but there will be a Government response in due course. But I can be clear today that better outcomes for savers lie at the heart of our proposals. I stress, given the comments we have heard today, that the proposals on surplus sharing include a range of safeguards, as the starting and foundational principle, to ensure that member benefits are protected.

Alistair Carmichael: I can understand the attractions of such changes for Governments and corporates, but I impress upon the Minister the need to ensure that if changes of this sort are to be made then the first protection always has to be for the beneficiaries. If there is to be flexibility for Governments and corporates to get investment in big infrastructure projects, that is to be encouraged but it should never be at the expense of the pensioners themselves.

Paul Maynard: That is very much the approach that I am taking with this matter. It has been discussed at great length at the sector roundtables that I have been present at. It has been a very strong theme that I have heard, so I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am acutely conscious that that is the lens through which I am looking at the issue.

Julian Lewis: My hon. Friend did say that things had moved on since January. May I gently remind him that it was in January that he told the Work and Pensions Committee that he was waiting to hear from his officials who were in discussions with the Cabinet Office about the AEA Technology pension scandal? He has since been saying that there is no timeline for how these people will be advised of appropriate redress. Does he expect there to be no timeline between now and the general election, or can they expect a definite answer at some point before then?

Paul Maynard: My right hon. Friend has pre-empted a topic that I was about to come to, because I could see that it was going to come up in the discussion on the Select Committee report. I have now been to see the Cabinet Office Minister with my officials, and my officials then went back for a second visit. So although I cannot give him a timeline, I can say that I am motoring this issue along as rapidly as I can. When I say that this is complex, it is because it is complex; it is not merely because that is a useful and convenient word to cover a multitude of things. We continue to work as fast as we can to try to reach a conclusion. I hear the points that he has made to me, both in this place and outside, about wanting to draw this to a conclusion as best we can.
The regulations that I referred to on the funding and investment strategy clarify what prudent funding plans look like, allow open schemes to take account of new members and future accrual, make it explicit that there is headroom in the regulatory environment for schemes to invest more productively, and require all schemes to be clear about their long-term strategy to protect member benefits.
DB funding levels have improved in recent years, and it is important that schemes take advantage of the opportunities that this brings. The scheme funding regulations will help schemes get the most from their  assets, while at the same time ensuring that scheme members can be confident that they will receive the benefits that they are promised.
The regulations embed good practice and build on the existing funding regime for DB schemes by providing clearer funding standards, which will ensure, as far as possible, that schemes are properly funded over the long term. Scheme members can and should be confident that the regulations provide increased security for their promised pensions, which is important to many of the people whom the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland is trying to support through this debate.
In addition, the new general code for the Pensions Regulator has come into effect since we last discussed these issues. The new general code consolidated and simplified 10 of the existing codes to make it easier for trustees and those running occupational pension schemes to find the information they need on the regulators’ standards of conduct and practice. It came into force at the end of March this year.
I will do my best to reply to some of the points that have been raised in the debate before I continue with my speech. I am grateful to the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), for covering many of the issues in what was a very helpful report on DB schemes. I know that we often discuss Select Committee reports in this place on a Thursday, and it is quite right that we should do so. Normally, however, we do so after the Government have issued their official response to that Committee report. If the Chair of the Select Committee will forgive me, I will not pre-empt every recommendation in the report. But I can assure him that I sat down for a marathon session with my officials not so long ago, going through every last sentence in the report, so I can tell him that I am giving the matter full consideration.
It is worth noting that both the right hon. Member for East Ham and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned the auto-enrolment reforms. I am happy to place on the record today our ongoing commitment to consult in the mid-2020s on that issue. I am keen to make progress. I hear all across the Chamber that there is a recognition of why it is important that we make as rapid progress as we can.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that he will have to provide a consultation. He summarised the general tone of the contributions very well. Certainly there have been more responses to that consultation than to any other during my time in the Department. I have read most of them myself, rather than just waiting for the summary. I have absorbed similar mood music to the right hon. Member for East Ham, and I hope that we can have a proper Government response very soon.

Stephen Timms: I thank the Minister for the attention that he is paying to the recommendations in our report. On the auto-enrolment review recommendations, does he envisage the consultation on implementation happening this side of the election?

Paul Maynard: No decision has yet been taken on when that might be. It would be wrong for me to speculate at the Dispatch Box about when it might occur but, as I say, I am keen for it to happen as soon as we can manage it.
The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) rightly raised his constituents and the AWS pensioners. As he may be aware from the oral evidence I gave to the Work and Pensions Committee, I have met with the pensioners. I fear this always sounds like a cliché, but I listened carefully, commissioned work on the back of that meeting, received that work and reviewed it, and then commissioned some further work on the back of that. The policy development process is ongoing. I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman. He asked for a timeline. He actually read out my timeline when he quoted my reply to him from 18 April, so he answered his own question. As I say, I will happily meet with him and the pensioners, but I caution him that I doubt that I can say very much more at this stage than I have already. He may want to consider at what point he wishes to have a further meeting, given that it is a long way for them to come from south Wales to hear me say what I already said to them a few months ago, but I am working hard on the issue.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) spoke eloquently about the potential value of CDCs, not least in this place. I cannot wait for the Royal Mail one to get off the ground. I welcome her comments on the importance of employers doing right by their employees. We should always note just how many do that. She asked for an update on the pensions dashboards. As I am sure the House knows, there was a reset of the pensions dashboards shortly before I arrived in the Department. I have taken a close personal interest in it, having overseen a few rail infrastructure projects in my time that also needed a bit of a reset. The chief executive of the Money and Pensions Service, Oliver Morley, and I are taking a careful, scrupulous and in-depth interest in the progress of the reset. I am satisfied that we are making good progress. The timetable for connections has now been issued, and we are very much on track.
The hon. Members for Strangford and for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Allan Dorans) mentioned WASPI. I am not sure that there is much that I can usefully add right now, because I do not think that this is the debate for it. I note the comments that were made and entirely understand them. As the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned, there will be a debate on WASPI in this place very soon, as an important part of the engagement with Parliament that the ombudsman identified. I look forward to hearing what Members have to say.
I will do my best to cover a few issues around discretionary increases, because it is important to put on record the legal situation. There are clear legal requirements for schemes to provide indexation on all defined-benefit rights accrued after 1997, and on guaranteed minimum pension rights accrued between 1988 and 1997. Some pension schemes go beyond the legal requirements and provide more generous indexation. If higher levels of indexation are set out in the scheme rules, those levels of indexation must be paid. The scheme rules set out the pension package that members have the right to receive. Some schemes provide additional indexation on a discretionary basis. In some cases, these payments may have been made regularly in the past, but they are not part of the pension package promised by the employer; rather, they are, and remain by definition, discretionary.
I understand the frustration that will cause for pension scheme members no longer receiving such discretionary increases, and during a previous debate I committed to  looking closely at the situation in order to better understand whether the arrangements that we have in place are working as intended. That commitment still stands, and I recently met with the Pensions Regulator to personally discuss the issue, along with many of the other concerns that were raised in January, and indeed some of those raised today. I have to stress that the legislation does not and cannot seek to set out exactly what every scheme must do in each and every circumstance. The legislation sets out some minimum standards for indexation. That does not prevent more generous arrangements, which may be brought into a scheme through its rules or provided on a discretionary basis. Those arrangements are the concern of the scheme trustees.
The Government set a minimum legal requirement, which trustees and sponsoring employers can exceed if they choose, if they judge that scheme can afford it in the short and the long term. It is important to achieve a balance, providing members with some measure of protection against inflation while not increasing a scheme’s costs beyond what most schemes can generally afford. Trustees, whether of big firms or small ones, must have an eye to the future viability of their scheme.
I am very grateful to all Members who have contributed to this debate. It has been wide-ranging, partly because, being called “Pension Schemes”, it covers a multitude of issues beyond the more precise ones that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland raised. I am grateful to all who have participated, and I commit to working much harder on this issue in the future, because I know how important it is to many of our constituents.

Nigel Evans: With two minutes, I call Alistair Carmichael to wind up.

Alistair Carmichael: When I contacted the Speaker’s Office this morning, I was told there was only myself and the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) down to speak, so I am delighted that we have had a good debate. We have had contributions from no fewer than 10 Members, which, given what is happening elsewhere today, is quite significant.
A number of Members made reference to the WASPI issue; I did not do so in the course of my remarks because it was not really germane, but it is a point well made and I very much associate myself with it. The ombudsman   took long enough to get a report on that, and now we need to get on and honour it. Otherwise, what is the point of having an ombudsman in the first place?
The function and purpose of debates such as this is to ensure that the concerns of our constituents are heard in Government; the presence of the Minister on the Front Bench is an important symbol of that. The companies to which reference has been made, BP, Shell, ExxonMobil, Hewlett-Packard and Allied Steel and Wire, are some of the best known high street names in the country, and I hope that what we have heard in this debate will be heard also in the boardrooms of those and other companies. The people who run those companies should understand that we are watching what they are doing, that they have an obligation to treat their former workers and their pensioners fairly and that, if they do not have it within themselves to do that, we in Parliament and in Government will make sure that they have to.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered pension schemes.

Stephen Doughty: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I understand there are reports online of a veteran allegedly being prevented from using their veterans ID card, which is a Government-issued ID card, for voting today in the elections that are taking place across the country today. I am sure that will be of concern to Members across the House. A Government Minister has apparently made a public apology and said that they will try to get the issue resolved. I wondered whether you had had any notice of an urgent statement next week on the matter. It does seem bizarre, not least because current military identity cards can be used, and the card is a Government-issued document. I declare an interest as a holder of one of those veterans cards, but it does seem very strange and I hope we can get some clarity on this from the Government. Have you had any notice of such a statement?

Nigel Evans: I have had no notification from any Government Minister that there will be a statement today. As you know, at the end of proceedings today, we go into the May recess and we will be reassembling on Tuesday. I know that those on the Treasury Bench will make certain that your comments are made available to Ministers, in order that there can be a response.

Kingsmill Massacre Inquest

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Joy Morrissey.)

Jim Shannon: First of all, may I thank Mr Speaker and the Table Office for allowing and facilitating this debate? It is with sadness, but also with determination and commitment, that I bring this matter to the House. I have spoken to the Minister of State, who I am pleased to see in his place; I gave him my speech beforehand and told him some of the things that I am asking for. With that purpose, we try to move forward to address these issues.
The debate refers to an event that took place 48 years ago. The reason it has taken so long is that the inquest happened only about two or three weeks ago. Although I asked for an urgent question on the Monday after that, I am very pleased to have this Adjournment debate.
This date is perhaps a poignant one because we understand that the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 has come into effect, which should mean the end of the probing of legacy issues. However, I am aware that the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland has said that her remit is to continue investigating former police officers for a further year. I am not sure why that remit continues, because people seeking truth and justice, including about Kingsmill and in other avenues, have been told that the date is passing. That is one of the questions that I have asked the Minister, and perhaps he could respond to it later.
It would appear that the vilification of the Royal Ulster Constabulary is to continue, with funding available, and I find that difficult to understand. My party—and, I believe, all Opposition parties—opposed the 2023 Act in its entirety, including on state bodies. My view was that the Government were seeking to cease any Police Ombudsman cases. I am afraid that that question must be answered, because there is an anomaly and a discrepancy there. Those who loved ones at Kingsmill and elsewhere must have their questions answered.
The Kingsmill massacre lives in the annals of history, along with the Darkley gospel hall attack, as the pinnacle of evil intention. There is absolutely no doubt about that in my mind or the minds of people outside this Chamber who are watching the debate. I want to give some details about what took place, because I think that they will illustrate the evilness of man.
The massacre took place on 5 January 1976, just after 5.30 pm. A red Ford Transit minibus was carrying textile workers home from their work along the rural road to Bessbrook. As the bus cleared the rise of a hill, it was stopped by a man in combat uniform standing on the road and flashing a torch. The workers assumed they were being stopped and searched by the British Army. As the bus stopped, eleven gunmen in combat uniform and with blackened faces emerged from the hedges. A man with a pronounced English accent—perhaps that put the bus driver at ease—began talking. He ordered the workers to get out of the bus and to line up facing it with their hands on the roof. He then asked, “Who is the Catholic in the bus?” Fearing that the gunmen were loyalists who had come to kill their Catholic colleague, his workmates tried to stop him from identifying himself. However, when Hughes stepped forward the  gunman told him: “Get down the road and don’t look back.” The lead gunman then said, “Right,” and the others immediately opened fire on the workers. The eleven men were shot—[Interruption.]

Steven Baker: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding us of just how wicked those events were, and for the passion with which he represents his constituents on these issues. I am clear that those were not the actions of soldiers in a war; they were the dishonourable crimes of cowardly terrorists. It is a matter of great regret that they have not expressed contrition or remorse, and that they did not confess to those crimes and suffer the justice that they were owed.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for that intervention.
The eleven men were shot at very close range with automatic rifles, which included Armalites. It is clear that 10 men were murdered because they were Protestants —that is what it was about. [Interruption.] A total of 136 rounds were fired in less than a minute. The men were shot at waist height and fell to the ground. Some fell on top of each other, either dead or wounded. When the initial burst of gunfire stopped, the gunmen reloaded their weapons. The order was given to “Finish them off”—in other words, no survivors—and another burst of gunfire was fired into the heaped bodies of the workmen. One of the gunmen also walked among the dying men and shot each of them in the head with a pistol as they lay on the ground. Such horror; such barbarity; such evil.
Ten of the men died at the scene; I will name those 10, if I can. They were John Bryans, 46 years of age; Robert Chambers, 19 years of age; Reginald Chapman, 25 years of age; Walter Chapman, 23 years of age; Robert Freeburn, 50 years of age; Joseph Lemmon, 46 years of age; John McConville, 20 years of age; James McWhirter, 58 years of age; Robert Walker, 46 years of age; and Kenneth Worton, 24 years of age. Alan Black, who was only 32 at the time, was the only one who survived. He had been shot 18 times, and one of the bullets had grazed his head. He said:
“I didn’t even flinch because I knew if I moved there would be another one”—
only that time, it would not have grazed his head, but would have killed him. After carrying out the shooting, the gunmen calmly walked away. Shortly after, a married couple came upon the scene of the killings and began praying beside the victims.
Those are the undisputed facts of the case. However, what the inquiry has found is what was first suggested by the Historical Enquiries Team investigation in 2011: that although the IRA was supposedly on ceasefire at the time, it was in fact the Provisional IRA that carried out the atrocity. The coroner said in his findings:
“The attack was carried out by the IRA operating under the authority of the Army Council which had, in April 1975, given wide authorisation to IRA units”.
It was sanctioned at the highest level by IRA terrorist scumbags.
However, the coroner failed to name the three known IRA terrorist individuals who carried out the killings, who are now deceased themselves. He should have done so; it was common knowledge, but for the purposes of the coroner’s report, they should have been named.  I think it is important that that is put on record: he failed to name and shame at least three known individuals, now themselves deceased. Those names were available in various media outlets, including the BBC.
Eleven automatic weapons were used to kill those 10 Protestant workmen. Those weapons were linked to 40 other serious republican terrorist crimes over a 15-year period, including the murder of two paratroopers in 1974 and the killing of Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and Superintendent Bob Buchanan in 1989. The coroner’s report further found that the organisation of the attack was planned well in advance in the Republic of Ireland. I have spoken to the Minister of State, and he knows that I am going to ask about this: the excuse within the findings, that the gardaí were not asked for information that they held at the time, is completely untenable. It further makes a mockery of the current legal proceedings and the Government’s legacy legislation that this clear evidence of the gardaí’s unwillingness to help with investigations, then and now, is so blatant. What police organisation would say, “You didn’t ask us for the information, so therefore we’ll not give it to you”? Police organisations—in this case, the Garda Síochána—  should have worked alongside the Royal Ulster Constabulary and ensured that all the evidence they had was made available, but it clearly was not. There are questions to ask in relation to that.
The other thing that concerns me greatly—this is the second part of the questions that the Kingsmill families are asking—is that the coroner refused to disclose information contained in secret files provided to him by the security forces in closed hearings. The three people who carried out the attack had on-the-run certificates given to them so that they could get away with their past crimes. It grieves me greatly to have to record the heartache and pain that those families feel because some of those people have got off. Why and how could that be the case?
There is another point I want to raise with the Minister, and it is really important to do so simply because there are just so many questions to be asked. The findings omit any discourse on the perpetrators, when it was said in south Armagh at the time that the dogs on the street knew who had carried out this atrocity—the Kingsmill massacre—with the murder of 10 innocent Protestant people. Indeed, it is widely held that the perpetrators carry on-the-run letters. Some elected Members have publicly joked—I can think of one in particular who joked with loaves of Kingsmill bread on the anniversary. The families do not laugh: they carry the pain. Some of the families wonder why the investigation of this massacre has received nothing like the results of other investigations that have resulted in prosecutions.
I make the point to the Minister of State, whom I spoke to beforehand: why is it that this was planned in the Republic of Ireland and was carried out from the jurisdiction of the Republic of Ireland, and those people were able to cross the border with impunity and then the Garda Síochána did not seem to do anything about it. The Minister of State will know my own personal case, and indeed everyone in this House probably knows it. My cousin Kenneth was murdered by the IRA as well—

Nigel Evans: Order. If the hon. Member wishes to take the time to compose himself, I am quite happy to wait for him to do so.  There is no pressure on him whatsoever. I know how emotional this is for him, and indeed for the House, so I am quite happy for him to compose himself.

Jim Shannon: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
My cousin Kenneth Smyth was murdered by the IRA on 10 December 1971. I use that as a comparison because it is true, and the three people who killed him escaped across the border, in the same way as the IRA men—11 of them—who killed the 10 Protestants at Kingsmill. There is a question to be answered, and there is a debt of justice. I am a believer, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I believe that people in the next world will have their justice, and we will have justice. However, I would like to see justice happening for the families in this world, and that is what I wish to see. On behalf of the Kingsmill families, I want the answer to the question: why was the Garda Síochána not forthcoming? On the murders of the two police constables, about which my party has certainly asked questions in the past, we want justice for them as well.
I have heard the cries for a public inquest, and it is very clear from what people are saying that they want to see that. I think it is right—very right—that the request should be forthcoming, yet it appears that the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act will halt this. However, as I indicated at the start of this all-too-brief contribution, the police ombudsman has highlighted that her role has been permitted to carry on for a further year, so why are the Kingsmill massacre families precluded?
A response to the coroner’s report, which I am going to quote in its entirety, states:
“It is for the reasons outlined above that Alan”,
who is the survivor,
“the Kingsmills families and”
others
“have called on the Secretary of State”—
in this case, it is the Minister of State who is answering on his behalf—
“to announce a full, independent Public Inquiry into the Kingsmills Massacre. We would like to have the support of our public representatives”.
I believe that the coroner’s finding has reaffirmed that call.
It is what we have all known for years, and there are many people in the Province who seek justice. Our family seeks justice, and the Kingsmill massacre families seek justice. There has to be a day of reckoning, and I would certainly like to see that day of reckoning happening in this world. The coroner’s finding reaffirmed what we have all known for many years, but that is all, and the families are asking for more. I ask this of the Minister of State, with great gentleness but firmness—he will not mind my doing so—and in a way that I hope underlines that the Kingsmill massacre families deserve more. I very humbly ask today for that inquiry and for that justice, with a public inquiry and with those questions answered for them. Thank you very much.

Steven Baker: I am glad to respond to today’s debate on a subject that is as ever, as we have seen, very painful and  difficult. The Government recognise that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has shown, the victims are people who feel. They are people who grieve and as my hon. Friend—he is my hon. Friend—has vividly illustrated, the scars run deep and the pain that people suffer, even today, is very great and vivid. We certainly recognise that. People want facts and they want justice. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for giving people voice today. He has done it with great skill, authenticity and passion. It is worth saying if he will allow me—I hope he will forgive me —that he is a strong and courageous man. I know that, and I myself feel that I reflect some of the passion that he does, even though I can never quite feel it.
I lived through the troubles as a boy, and as a young Royal Air Force officer in the ‘90s. Since I was on fast jets I was never posted to Northern Ireland, but I did have to check under my car every time I got in it in the ‘90s. People were shot dead—people who perhaps looked like me because we had short hair and looked military. I have not suffered losses as my hon. Friend has, and any of us who have any reason to consider the troubles and what they meant, must in great humility acknowledge the suffering of those who lost those they loved. Indeed, we have to acknowledge the contribution of those who served to defend us from great evils, about which he has elaborated.
I hope that today I will be able to answer my hon. Friend’s questions, and I am extremely grateful for advance sight of his remarks. I believe I will be able to satisfy him in at least some regard, and if I am not able to, I will be glad to meet him and discuss matters further. I come first to the findings of the inquest. The Kingsmill murders, in which the Provisional IRA shot dead 10 Protestant workmen and left one severely injured, is an appalling example of the pain and suffering inflicted on civilians during the troubles. We must never forget that it was the civilian population who suffered most in terms of lives lost from that period of violence, with close to 1,900 people killed. The victims and families of Kingsmill, including the sole survivor of the attack, Mr Alan Black, have fought for many decades to get information and accountability from those responsible.
The coroner for the inquest delivered clear and detailed findings, including: that Kingsmill was a horrific and overtly sectarian atrocity committed by the IRA under the authority of the Army Council, and the attack had absolutely no justification; that the attack had been planned well in advance, and an attack of such scale required a significant amount of planning; that the attack occurred in the aftermath of, and ostensibly as a response to the Reavey and O’Dowd murders, but the reality is that it had been planned long before they took place.
The coroner also said that the rumours concerning the involvement of Captain Robert Nairac in the Kingsmill attack are entirely false, and I would like to quote from the Judicial Communications Office:
“The Coroner was entirely satisfied that Captain Nairac had no role whatsoever in the Kingsmill atrocity. He said:
‘Captain Robert Nairac was a highly decorated soldier, and his memory is ill-served by those who persist in rumour mongering concerning his involvement in Kingsmill. Moreover, the false accusation serves to distract from the proper attribution of  responsibility for those who carried out the attack. Rumours concerning the involvement of Captain Robert Nairac in the Kingsmill attack are entirely false.’”
The coroner also said that the attack was, at least in part, planned in Ireland. The border between Northern Ireland and Ireland was “exploited by terrorists” and allowed for
“planning, training, organisation, weapons storage and retreat at a safe physical and legal distance from the authorities that would be faced with investigating terrorist acts in Northern Ireland”.
Despite these findings I acknowledge, with regret, that there will be some unanswered questions for the families. That is unfortunately often the case in what are complex, sensitive, and decades-old troubles-related cases. One key reason why such questions remain unanswered in this case is what the coroner described as
“the absence of any disclosure or evidence from those who caused the deaths”.
The coroner said that the inquest
“did not receive disclosure from any individual concerned in the attack, nor their organisation, nor their political representatives.”
In fact, numerous calls to assist the inquest were met with silence. As a result, despite the savagery of the attack, the coroner found that there has been
“no acknowledgement by the IRA of the utter wrongness of the atrocity, its impact on those bereaved or the damage caused to the entire community”.
As we look forward to an amazing period of opportunity for Northern Ireland ahead of us, with the Executive restored and performing extremely well, there is a great role to be played as we move towards reconciliation by people who have the opportunity to express contrition and remorse. It is extremely difficult to forgive someone who claims that their actions were necessary and that they were soldiers in a war. They were not; they committed acts of terrorism, as this incident clearly illustrates. I encourage everyone involved to express contrition and remorse, to seek forgiveness and to help Northern Ireland to move on. That is in everyone’s interests, whatever their view on the constitutional question.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and letters of comfort. To address his point about the ombudsman’s work, I will provide clarification on what investigative bodies can still deliver. Section 38 of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 specifically prohibits the commencement or continuation of any troubles-related criminal investigation from 1 May 2024, apart from those that will be conducted by the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery. That remains the case for all investigative bodies, including the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland.
In the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (Commencement No. 2 and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2024, which we laid yesterday, we included a transitional provision to clarify that in cases where an investigation had been completed prior to yesterday, 1 May, and only final administrative tasks remained outstanding, which may include activities such as report writing, family engagement or publication, they may be retained and completed by their original owner, but no further investigative work may now be done, except by the ICRIR in relation to troubles-era offences, and that includes the ombudsman. The transitional provision applies to any body that had such outstanding final administrative tasks on   1 May 2024, including Operation Kenova, the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland.

Jim Shannon: The issue for the families is that they are aware that the Garda Síochána had information pertinent to this atrocity—this massacre—of 10 innocents. The question that they are asking and that I am asking as a Member of Parliament, which I hope the Minister of State can respond to, is about evidence not available before that is available now. It could have a determining impact on decisions. I know I also asked on behalf of the families for a public inquiry, but if all the information and evidence that should have been available, but was not, is available now, it could put a different stain or paint a different colour on what happened. It could lead to those who were responsible being held accountable.

Steven Baker: I believe I will be able to cover all those points that the hon. Gentleman has raised as I go through my remarks. I hope you will not mind my saying, Mr Deputy Speaker, that we are not short of time. It is worth, for the hon. Gentleman and those watching, my giving a proper answer. I hope to do that, and I will certainly take further interventions from him as we go on.
In relation to alleged on-the-run letters in the hands of perpetrators, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) set out the Government’s position on the on-the-runs scheme fully in her statement to the House of Commons on 9 September 2014. That followed detailed consideration of the report by Lady Justice Hallett, which was published in July 2014. In her statement, the then Secretary of State was clear that the on-the-runs scheme was at an end and there was no basis for any reliance on letters received by so-called on-the-runs under the scheme. During legislative passage of the legacy Act, the Government again confirmed that position. I do not know who did or did not receive on-the-run letters. I will come on to that matter in a moment, but it will now be an operational matter for the ICRIR to consider. It is not something on which I can elaborate further.

Jim Shannon: Will the Minister give way?

Steven Baker: I will, but I will talk about the ICRIR straight away.

Jim Shannon: If the responsibility falls on that body, is it in order to ask it to clarify the matter of the on-the-runs letters? That was clearly not done in the coroner’s report, but the families indicate clearly that it did have them.

Steven Baker: I would be grateful if families made reference to the ICRIR. Later, I shall publish a link to its website, which speaks about investigations. I have had a good look at the website in preparing for the debate—I will come on to that—and I will send that link to my hon. Friend, so that he can share it with people. Yes, people should certainly make a reference, and I hope that the ICRIR will feel able to satisfy them, but he will know that it is independent of Ministers, so that is not a matter for me, but for the commission.
I believe that Members of the House will share the Government’s disappointment that the inquest could not obtain the co-operation it desired from those implicated  in, or with knowledge about, the atrocity, and who may have been able to provide additional information for the families involved. The Government have long recognised that truly effective information recovery requires the co-operation of the various different actors during the troubles. That is exactly why the new Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery is supported by both a legislative requirement for full disclosure by the state, and by powers to compel witnesses to provide evidence. I am pleased that the ICRIR commenced its functions on 1 May, as expected.
Those powers mean that the independent commission will have the tools that it needs to obtain as much information as possible for individuals and families. In fact, the Northern Ireland High Court recently found that the disclosure powers held by the commission were not only compliant with the state’s international obligations, but could improve on current inquests mechanisms. Individuals suspected of holding information that might be pertinent to a review by the commission will now be required to co-operate with the commission or risk a significant sanction. Refusal to comply with a notice of disclosure by the commission is subject to a penalty notice of up to £5,000.
I turn to remarks by Peter Sheridan, the commissioner for investigations. In an article released by PA Media titled, “Chances of prosecutions from new legacy body ‘vanishingly small’”, Mr Sheridan said:
“I have heard across the board about how justice stops on the first of May. Actually, if people read the information, the opposite is true. I, as the commissioner for investigations, have the ability to do criminal justice-style investigations and report to the prosecution service either in England and Wales or here in Northern Ireland where we find evidence available.”
He further said:
“I want to be absolutely honest with victims and survivors on what is a vanishingly small possibility around criminal justice prosecutions. Not that there isn’t still hope, there could be evidence available that is enough to prosecute.
But he also explained:
“If you take Kenova, £40 million, eight years work and no prosecutions. So we have to be honest with people of what’s achievable about cases that are 20, 30, 40, 50 years old.”
That is the situation we face, and that is why we have instituted the commission. It will have the opportunity to engage in culpability investigations.
My hon. Friend and the families are keen for people to be named. Culpability investigations are described on the website. I understand my hon. Friend’s concern regarding the naming of individuals. It is important to note that there should be consideration of many issues, and judgments made, including about the safety of life. Such considerations will remain relevant as the process moves forward.
The ICRIR will seek to establish all the circumstances of the death or other harmful conduct, using its full range of statutory powers, including the ability to compel witnesses. The commission will, at the conclusion of its review, write a final report. It will make findings, on the balance of probabilities, on issues such as who and what was to blame; importantly, it will answer specific questions asked by families, where that is possible. However, the content of reports is an operational matter for the ICRIR. It is independent of Ministers, as is right and proper. I am confident that many people out there would not believe Ministers, so it is important that the  ICRIR is independent. I encourage people to look at the website, and I will tweet the link later. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to share it with families.
Turning to the Irish Government, one of the coroner’s other key findings—the exploitation of the border in the planning, execution or aftermath of criminal activity, not just in this case but throughout the entirety of the troubles—is well established, as the hon. Gentleman indicated. As he will know well, there are many troubles-related cases in which criminal activity is suspected to have taken place across jurisdictions. For individuals and families who are the victims of such cases, effective information recovery will require the provision of information by the Irish authorities.
One such case is the Omagh bombing. The UK Government continue to press the Irish Government to co-operate fully with the inquiry on that, and, if necessary, to establish similar processes in Ireland, to facilitate the full provision of answers for the families affected. I repeat that invitation to the Irish Government today. They are very welcome to establish processes for co-operation with the commission, to the end that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Where they have information that could help with information discovery and reconciliation, I encourage them to work with the commission.
To date, the Irish Government have declined to commit to co-operating with the commission to facilitate the provision of information to families who request it. The recent Northern Ireland High Court judgment found the commission to be operationally independent from Government and capable of conducting reviews in accordance with the state’s obligations under articles 2 and 3 of the European convention on human rights. We hope that that will lead to further engagement by the Irish Government with the commission. The approach taken by the Irish Government to co-operating with the Kingsmill inquest—the coroner expressed gratitude for the co-operation of the Irish authorities—should act as a useful template for future co-operation with both the Omagh bombing inquiry and the ICRIR.
I would like to put on record that the relationship between the UK Government and the Irish Government is, today, one of robust friendship. We are friends and partners, not rivals or opponents. We are going forward together in a spirit of constructive co-operation on a wide range of matters. I am proud to have played some part in making that possible. This would be a great time for our two nations to co-operate in detail on issues of the past, to help lay to rest various suspicions or expose wrongdoing, and so make progress.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for that positive outlook. I brought this Adjournment debate on behalf of the families who lost 10 loved ones, and the survivor Alan Black. Could the Minister’s answer and the correspondence be conveyed to the Taoiseach down south and the necessary Minister there, with the message that we seek justice for the Kingsmill massacre families, to ensure that after 48 years, their case is answered?

Steven Baker: I would be astonished if the Irish Government were not following this debate live. We have friends in the embassy of Ireland and in the Government of Ireland whom we respect, and with whom we wish to continue to develop a friendship and co-operation. The relationship between the UK and Ireland is fundamental. For too long, we failed to look west, but we should have done. As is often said, one of the problems we face is that the Irish never forget the history, and the English never remember. We need to make the effort to remember, and to go forward as friends in a spirit of co-operation. It is precisely because we respect Ireland and its status as an independent nation making its own choices that we can really only plead, encourage and invite it to join us in working with the ICRIR.
The hon. Gentleman made the case on why An Garda Síochána was not forthcoming. I will just say that that will have been heard by the Irish Government, and I think he makes a powerful case for further co-operation. The Garda will have records that may assist in answering the kinds of questions that he raises. It is in their interests to defend their excellent reputation. In the interests of defending themselves, the records should be shared. I certainly wish to offer no criticism.
In closing, I express my sincere hope that the conclusion of the long-running Kingsmill inquest will bring some form of comfort to the families affected. Where questions remain, I urge the families seeking answers to make use of the powers of the new commission. The ICRIR is led by Sir Declan Morgan KC and staffed by dedicated individuals experienced in working on legacy and reconciliation issues, and the Government have full confidence in its ability to deliver for victims and survivors, including those affected by the awful, appalling and unjustifiable actions of the IRA at Kingsmill in January 1976.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.